INDIAN METALS AND FERRO ALLOYS LTD,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

1) of the I.T. Act 1961 in the case of M/s. Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "the assessee") for the computation of arm’s length price in relation to international transaction detailed in the audit report in Form No. 3CEB was received through online portal on 16.09.2022. 2.0 Subsequently, an order under section 92CA

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

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

10. Without prejudice to above, as the realm of the determination of Arm Length Price lies in identification and comparability of uncontrolled transaction vis-a-vis controlled transaction, therefore in the case of the appellant JV, the "Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method" (CUP) as mentioned in Section 92C(1)(a) t.w.r. 10B(1)(a) would be the most appropriate method because

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

10. Without prejudice to above, as the realm of the determination of Arm Length Price lies in identification and comparability of uncontrolled transaction vis-a-vis controlled transaction, therefore in the case of the appellant JV, the "Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method" (CUP) as mentioned in Section 92C(1)(a) t.w.r. 10B(1)(a) would be the most appropriate method because

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

1)(a) of the Act. “Appointed Day” means 31st day of December, 2016. Section 5 of the SBNs Cessation of Liabilities Act, 2017 also deals with prohibition of holding, transferring or receiving SBNs. Section 5 states as under : “5. On and from the appointed day, no person shall, knowingly or voluntarily, hold, transfer or receive any specified bank note: Provided

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

1 under Section 10 (38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are extracted hereunder:- "Any income arising from the transfer of a long term capital asset, being an equity share in a company or a unit of an equity oriented fund for a unit of a business trust where- (a) the transaction of sale of such equity share or unit

RASHI AGRAWAL,CUTTACKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 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

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

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

KALINGA MINING CORPORATION,CUTTACK vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

10. That, the appellant has disclosed fully and truly all information, materials in connection with the assessment and no new facts have been found out or utilized by the AO to empower him to exercise jurisdiction u/s.147/148. No fresh tangible information has come to the notice of the assessing officer after completion of assessment u/s.143 (3). 11. That, the fact

KALINGA MINING CORPORATION,CUTTACK vs. A.C.I.T, CIRCLE-2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

10. That, the appellant has disclosed fully and truly all information, materials in connection with the assessment and no new facts have been found out or utilized by the AO to empower him to exercise jurisdiction u/s.147/148. No fresh tangible information has come to the notice of the assessing officer after completion of assessment u/s.143 (3). 11. That, the fact

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

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

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

1. For that, the impugned order of Reassessment so passed U/s. 147/144 is without jurisdiction and without the authority of law, as such, the same being not sustainable in the eye of law is liable to be quashed in the interest of justice. 2. For that, when there is no excess or illegal mining by the Appellant, the Forums below