PARADIP PORT AUTHORITY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer” shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 92CA.] (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

PARADIP PORT AUTHORITY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer” shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 92CA.] (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

PARADIP PORT AUTHORITY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer” shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 92CA.] (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 10(38) of the Act and denial of an opportunity to cross examine the entry providers, turned on facts. The ITAT was justified in accepting the plea of the Assessee that the failure to adhere the principles of natural justice went to the root of the matter. Also, the CBDT circular that permitted to the Assessee to file revised

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

transfer as a consequence of the merger to treat the same as Short Term Capital Gains. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal of the revenue filed in the case of Smt. Bimala Devi Singhania in ITA No.212/CTK/2019. 7. In the above circumstances, respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Bimala Devi Singhania

SATISH KUMAR GARG,ROURKELA vs. ITO WARD-5, ROURKELA

In the result, appeal of assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember Assessment Year : 2014-15 Satish Satish Kumar Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Income Tax Officer, Ward Garg,Gurudwara Road, Near Garg,Gurudwara Road, Near Aayakar Bhavan, Uditnagar, Aayakar Bhavan, Uditnagar, Gurudwara, Rourkela Gurudwara, Rourkela Rourkela Pan/Gir No. . (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Adv : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr , Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/09/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/09/2 2024 O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld Inst The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Cit(A), Nfac, Nfac, Delhi Delhi Dated 26.12.2022 In Appeal No.Cit(A),Sambalpur/10380/2016 Sambalpur/10380/2016-17 For The Assessment Year 2014 Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue. S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

price of shares. The SEBI has investigated many companies and has drawn their conclusions but there is no adverse inference drawn against CCL International Ltd. The assessee has purchased shares as early as in 2011. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has permitted merger of the shares of AAR Infrastructure Ltd with that of CCL International Ltd. The assessee

PRAKASH AGARWAL,ROURKELA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KEONJHAR

In the result, appeal of assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember Assessment Year : 2014-15 Satish Satish Kumar Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Income Tax Officer, Ward Garg,Gurudwara Road, Near Garg,Gurudwara Road, Near Aayakar Bhavan, Uditnagar, Aayakar Bhavan, Uditnagar, Gurudwara, Rourkela Gurudwara, Rourkela Rourkela Pan/Gir No. . (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Adv : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr , Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/09/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/09/2 2024 O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld Inst The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Cit(A), Nfac, Nfac, Delhi Delhi Dated 26.12.2024 In Appeal No.Cit(A),Sambalpur/10380/2016 Sambalpur/10380/2016-17 For The Assessment Year 2014 Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue. S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

price of shares. The SEBI has investigated many companies and has drawn their conclusions but there is no adverse inference drawn against CCL International Ltd. The assessee has purchased shares as early as in 2011. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has permitted merger of the shares of AAR Infrastructure Ltd with that of CCL International Ltd. The assessee

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

transfer pricing study which shows that the JV that the any other method is annexed as Annexure-3. It is further submitted that section 92C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides five method for computation of Arm Length Price and the details of aforesaid five methods are mentioned in Rule-10B of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Further

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

transfer pricing study which shows that the JV that the any other method is annexed as Annexure-3. It is further submitted that section 92C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides five method for computation of Arm Length Price and the details of aforesaid five methods are mentioned in Rule-10B of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Further

RASHI AGRAWAL,CUTTACKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

price as it was the appellant who had traded in the shares of the this company which resulted into claim of long term capital gains which is exempt under section 10(38). Once the assessee was made aware of the result of the investigation which proved that trading of shares leading to long term capital gains was not genuine

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

transferred 1,00,000 shares to his wife Mrs. Mridulla Gupta through an unregistered gift deed. The balance 7,67,500 shares were sold by the assessee during the year under consideration i.e over the period June, 2010 to October, 2010 and the LTCG of Rs. 5,93,15,038/- arising therefrom was claimed by him as exempt u/s 10

LALIT KUMAR JALAN,JALAN PHARMACEUTICALS vs. ITO WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed with the directions

transfer, the Assessing Officer may refer the valuation of the capital asset to a Valuation Officer. Sub-section (2) further provides that where any such reference is made, the provisions of sub-section (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of section 16A, clause (i) of sub-section (1) and sub- section (6) and (7) of section 23A, sub-section

MR. BICHITRANANDA ROUT,SHANKARPUR, CUTTACK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

transferring or receiving SBNs is only after the ‘appointed day’ which is 31.12.2016. In view of the above, there is no violation by the assessee of any law in accepting SBNs for the purpose of cash sales and considering it to be a due discharge of debt. Furthermore, even the CBDT had issued various Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) instructing

ABANI PATTANAYAK,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Section 43A of the Transfer Pricing Act, as part performance as required from the side of the assessee, has fully been complied with being the payment of consideration, the indexation would be available to the assessee from the assessment year 2007-2008 relevant to the financial year 2006-2007. In view of the above, this ground of assessee is allowed

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 10(38) of the Act, the requirement was only 12 months. It was the submission that the ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the order of the ld. AO without considering the submissions of the assessee. It was the prayer that the assessee may be held to be eligible for the exemption u/s.10

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 10(38) of the Act, the requirement was only 12 months. It was the submission that the ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the order of the ld. AO without considering the submissions of the assessee. It was the prayer that the assessee may be held to be eligible for the exemption u/s.10

LORAMITRA RATH,KAIRAPARI KOTSAHI, TANGI vs. DCIT (CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2015-16 Loramitra Loramitra Rath, Rath, Kairapari Kairapari Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kotsahi, Tangi, Cuttack Kotsahi, Tangi, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aebpr 6065 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, Ca Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr

Section 3. subjects to charge "all income" of an individual, it is what reaches the individual as income which it is intended to charge. In the present case the decree of the court by charging the appellant's whole resources with a specific payment to his step mother has to that extent diverted his income from him and has directed

M/S. NABADURGA MINERALS ,RAIRANGPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, BALASORE

In the result, appeals of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अपील संसंसंसं/Ita No.460/Ctk/2019 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment : 2008-2009) िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit, Balasore Circle, Balasore Vs Mr. Biirat Chandra Dagara, Rairangpur, Mayurbhanj Pan No. :Aecpd 7343 D & आयकर अपील संसंसंसं/Ita Nos.461, 386 & 387/Ctk/2019 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / A.Yrs. : 2008-2009, 2009-2010 & 2010-2011) वष" Acit, Balasore Circle, Balasore Vs M/S Nabbadurga Minerals, Rairangpur, Mayurbhanj Pan No. :Aaabfn 8099 H & आयकर अपील संसंसंसं/Ita Nos.111 & 112/Ctk/2020 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / A.Yrs. : 2009-2010 & 2010-2011) वष" M/S Nabadurga Minerals, Vs Acit, Circle, Balasore Rairangpur, Mayurbhanj Pan No. :Aabfn 8099 H (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" .. राज"व राज"व क" राज"व राज"व क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr िनधा"रती िनधा"रती क" िनधा"रती िनधा"रती क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By ओर : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 19/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19/09/2024 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Cuttack, Dated 30.08.2019 & 30.09.2019, For The Assessment Years 2008-2009, 2009-2010 & 2010- 2011, Respectively. 2. First We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Revenue In Ita No.460/Ctk/2019 In The Case Of Birat Chandra Dagara For The Assessment Year 2008-2009, Wherein The Revenue Has Initially Has Taken Certain & Ita Nos.111&112/Ctk/2020

transfer of mining lease in the name of assessee firm who declared income from such mining activity, therefore, it is a clear violation of Rule 37 of Mining Concession Rules, 1960. Therefore, in the case of Birat Chandra Dagara, proceedings u/s.263 of the Act were initiated by the ld. Pr.CIT for making additions on account of mining income from mining