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

M/S. BALASORE CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,BALASORE vs. ACIT, BALASORE CIRCLE, BALASORE

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

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.467/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Balasore Cooperative Bank Vs. Acit, Balasore Circle, Limited, Balasore Bibekananda Marg, Balasore-756001 Pan No. : Aaccb 7823 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.N.Sahu/Somnath Sahoo,Advs राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/08/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A), Cuttack, Dated 04.08.2017, For The Assessment Year 2012-2013, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1) That The Order Of The Id. Cit(Appeals) Confirming The Additions & Disallowances Made By The A.O. Is Illegal, Arbitrary, Unjustified & Not In Accordance With Law. 2) That The Addition Of Rs. 36,79,148/- U/S. 40(A)(Ia) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Confirmed By Cit(Appeals) To The Extent Of Rs. 36,30,998/- Is Illegal, Arbitrary, Uncalled For & Not In Accordance With Law & The Same Should Have Been Deleted By The Learned Cit(Appeals). 3) That The Disallowance U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of Rs. 36,79,148/- As Detailed Below Is Illegal, Arbitrary & Unjustified & Hence Should Have Been Deleted By The Learned Cit(A) As The Genuineness Is Not In Doubt. Non-Deduction Of Tds Is A Separate Issue. A) Commission Payment To Dlds Collection Agents Rs. 33,45,248/- B) Legal Expenses Rs. 2,52,000/- C) Audit Fees Rs. 81,900/-

price. Nothing has been brought on record by the AO to prove that the persons paid were in pursuance of a contract. Therefore, Section 40(a)(ia) has no application has been decided in the case of CIT Vs. United Rice Land Ltd, 217 CTR 332, 322 ITR 594 (P&H), (Page No. 71 of the Paper Book). The Honourable

KSSIIPL VEL JV,PURI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-5(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

section 92F(iii) and reading the said provision along with Rule 10B(l)(e) of the Rules, the Tribunal held that the net profit margin of the Enterprise which is in India, has to be determined by applying the Transfer Pricing Regulations. The Tribunal was largely guided by the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in Aurionpro Solutions Limited, wherein

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

M/S. ORISSA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, ITA No.335/CTK/2017 is allowed and ITA

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Orissa Cricket Association Vs. Cit(Exemptions), Barabati Stadium,Cuttack-753001, Hyderabad Odisha, Pan No. : Aaaao 0319 F & Orissa Cricket Association Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Barabati Stadium, Cuttack Cuttack-753001, Odisha Pan No. : Aaaao 0319 F (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. निर्धाऩिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan & D.Das, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Saad Kidwai, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12/12/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri N.S.Saini, Am:

transferred on that day to the Commissioner and the Commissioner may proceed with such applications under that sub-section from the stage at which they were on that day. (2) Every order granting or refusing registration under clause (b) of sub-section (1) shall be passed before the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which

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

ORISSA OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION,CUTTACK vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2009-2010

transferred on that day to the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner and the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner may proceed with such applications under that sub- section from the stage at which they were on that day. (2) Every order granting or refusing registration under clause (b) of sub-section (1) shall be passed before the expiry of six months from

MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD.,SAMBALPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), SAMBALPUR

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

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.174/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015 - 2016) Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcm 5188 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Podar, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.M.Keshkamat, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am :

transfer the lands to any other persons without the prior approval of the Central Government" .That the company can do the mining activities/business if and only such premium is paid to the Government of India. Hence, it is crystal clear that the payment of premium is wholly & exclusively for the purpose of business and qualifies for deduction U/s.37(1

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

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 1,00,000/- shares

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. SITANSU SEKHAR MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

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

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 1,00,000/- shares

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

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 1,00,000/- shares

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

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 1,00,000/- shares

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

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 1,00,000/- shares

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

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 1,00,000/- shares

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

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 1,00,000/- shares