ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. ANUPAMA MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

justice. than twelve months and 'were transferred through a recognized stock exchange after duly paying securities transaction tax (STT). Therefore, the consideration received was in the nature of a long term capital gain (LTC G) held to be exempt u/s. 10(38) of the LT Act, 1961. From the submissions of the assessee, it is seen that the assessee purchased

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. ANUPAMA MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

justice. than twelve months and 'were transferred through a recognized stock exchange after duly paying securities transaction tax (STT). Therefore, the consideration received was in the nature of a long term capital gain (LTC G) held to be exempt u/s. 10(38) of the LT Act, 1961. From the submissions of the assessee, it is seen that the assessee purchased

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. DEEPANSU MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

justice. than twelve months and 'were transferred through a recognized stock exchange after duly paying securities transaction tax (STT). Therefore, the consideration received was in the nature of a long term capital gain (LTC G) held to be exempt u/s. 10(38) of the LT Act, 1961. From the submissions of the assessee, it is seen that the assessee purchased

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. HIMANSU MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

justice. than twelve months and 'were transferred through a recognized stock exchange after duly paying securities transaction tax (STT). Therefore, the consideration received was in the nature of a long term capital gain (LTC G) held to be exempt u/s. 10(38) of the LT Act, 1961. From the submissions of the assessee, it is seen that the assessee purchased

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. HIMANSU MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

justice. than twelve months and 'were transferred through a recognized stock exchange after duly paying securities transaction tax (STT). Therefore, the consideration received was in the nature of a long term capital gain (LTC G) held to be exempt u/s. 10(38) of the LT Act, 1961. From the submissions of the assessee, it is seen that the assessee purchased

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. SMT. KUNTALA MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

justice. than twelve months and 'were transferred through a recognized stock exchange after duly paying securities transaction tax (STT). Therefore, the consideration received was in the nature of a long term capital gain (LTC G) held to be exempt u/s. 10(38) of the LT Act, 1961. From the submissions of the assessee, it is seen that the assessee purchased

ITO, BHADRAK WARD , BHADRAK vs. PARBATI MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

justice. than twelve months and 'were transferred through a recognized stock exchange after duly paying securities transaction tax (STT). Therefore, the consideration received was in the nature of a long term capital gain (LTC G) held to be exempt u/s. 10(38) of the LT Act, 1961. From the submissions of the assessee, it is seen that the assessee purchased

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. KISHORE KUMAR MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

justice. than twelve months and 'were transferred through a recognized stock exchange after duly paying securities transaction tax (STT). Therefore, the consideration received was in the nature of a long term capital gain (LTC G) held to be exempt u/s. 10(38) of the LT Act, 1961. From the submissions of the assessee, it is seen that the assessee purchased

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. MAMATA MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

justice. than twelve months and 'were transferred through a recognized stock exchange after duly paying securities transaction tax (STT). Therefore, the consideration received was in the nature of a long term capital gain (LTC G) held to be exempt u/s. 10(38) of the LT Act, 1961. From the submissions of the assessee, it is seen that the assessee purchased

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. AMRUTA PREETAM MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

justice. than twelve months and 'were transferred through a recognized stock exchange after duly paying securities transaction tax (STT). Therefore, the consideration received was in the nature of a long term capital gain (LTC G) held to be exempt u/s. 10(38) of the LT Act, 1961. From the submissions of the assessee, it is seen that the assessee purchased

ITO, ANGUL WARD, ANGUL vs. NCC-SMASL-JRT(JV), ANGUL

transfer the entire sale proceeds to AE to ensure lowest sale price to MC. The assessee failed to justify the rationality of the approach since, the ultimate sale price to MCL is not linked with the cost of either assessee or AE in the entire scheme of arrangement. Further, the assessee's contention that the income of the assessee

ITO, ANGUL WARD, , ANGUL vs. M/S. NCC SMASL JRT(JV),, ANGUL

transfer the entire sale proceeds to AE to ensure lowest sale price to MC. The assessee failed to justify the rationality of the approach since, the ultimate sale price to MCL is not linked with the cost of either assessee or AE in the entire scheme of arrangement. Further, the assessee's contention that the income of the assessee

SANDEEP KUMAR AGARWAL,JAGATPUR vs. ACIT,NFAC, DELHI, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2014-15 Sandeep Sandeep Kumar Kumar Agarwal, Agarwal, Vs. Acit, Nfac, Delhi/Cuttack Acit, Nfac, Delhi/Cuttack C/O. Agarwal Spices & C/O. Agarwal Spices & Food Processors Pvt Ltd., Food Processors Pvt Ltd., Jagatpur. Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aarpa 8064 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth Mohit Sheth, Adv Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Ld Sr Dr , Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/0 05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/0 /05/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

pricing of each of the shares varies between 10 and 690. The dealt with by the assessee which are above the value of 100 are about 9 out of 55 different shares. Thus, the assessee is substantially into dealing in midcap and small cap shares. The shares of AAR Infrastructure which has been applied for and has been allotted

HEMANT KUMAR AGARWAL,CUTTACK vs. ADDL.CIT , NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

pricing of each of the shares varies between 10 and 690. The shares out of 55 different shares. Thus, the assessee is substantially into dealing in midcap and small cap shares. The shares of AAR Infrastructure which has been applied for and has been allotted on account of merger with CCL International increased in number but reduced in value. Admittedly

HEMANT KUMAR AGARWAL,CUTTACK vs. ADDL.CIT NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

pricing of each of the shares varies between 10 and 690. The shares out of 55 different shares. Thus, the assessee is substantially into dealing in midcap and small cap shares. The shares of AAR Infrastructure which has been applied for and has been allotted on account of merger with CCL International increased in number but reduced in value. Admittedly

RIDHI BAGARIA,CUTTACK vs. ITO WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

price appearing on the exchange portal and at the point of time of sale of equity shares, companies were not marked as shell companies by SEBI and nor the trading of these scrips were suspended. The assessee also deserves to succeed on the legal ground as no opportunity was awarded to cross examination the third person which were allegedly found

RASHI AGRAWAL,CUTTACKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected”. 24. We accordingly in view of our above discussions, facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following judicial precedents and the decisions of Co- ordinate benches squarely applicable on the instant cases, are of the considered view that in the case of the assessee(s) namely Shivnarayan Sharma, Sapan

ASHWIN KUMAR AGARWAL,CUTTACK vs. DCIT ASMNT CIRCLE-2(1)CUTTACK, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

transfer of a long term capital asset, being an equity share in a company, if the transaction of acquisition, other than the acquisition notified by the Central Government in this behalf, of such equity share is entered into on or after the 1st day of October, 2004 and such transaction is not chargeable to securities transaction tax under Chapter