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

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

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

20 ITA Nos.208-210/CTK/2024 PCIT vs Subhash Kabini Power Corporation Ltd [2016] 69 taxmann.com 394 (Karnataka HC) "It is settled legal position that one of the requirements for exercise of power under section 263 is that the order passed by the lower authority should not only be erroneous, but should also be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, which

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

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

20 ITA Nos.208-210/CTK/2024 PCIT vs Subhash Kabini Power Corporation Ltd [2016] 69 taxmann.com 394 (Karnataka HC) "It is settled legal position that one of the requirements for exercise of power under section 263 is that the order passed by the lower authority should not only be erroneous, but should also be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, which

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

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

20 ITA Nos.208-210/CTK/2024 PCIT vs Subhash Kabini Power Corporation Ltd [2016] 69 taxmann.com 394 (Karnataka HC) "It is settled legal position that one of the requirements for exercise of power under section 263 is that the order passed by the lower authority should not only be erroneous, but should also be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, which

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

transfer. Hence, the amount received by the assessee is undeniably in the nature of a long term capital gain (L TCG). The AO's action was based entirely on surmises and suspicions and at the same time. the AD was unable to rebut the concrete evidence tendered by the assessee in support of his claim. Further, the prevailing weight

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

transfer. Hence, the amount received by the assessee is undeniably in the nature of a long term capital gain (L TCG). The AO's action was based entirely on surmises and suspicions and at the same time. the AD was unable to rebut the concrete evidence tendered by the assessee in support of his claim. Further, the prevailing weight

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

transfer. Hence, the amount received by the assessee is undeniably in the nature of a long term capital gain (L TCG). The AO's action was based entirely on surmises and suspicions and at the same time. the AD was unable to rebut the concrete evidence tendered by the assessee in support of his claim. Further, the prevailing weight

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

transfer. Hence, the amount received by the assessee is undeniably in the nature of a long term capital gain (L TCG). The AO's action was based entirely on surmises and suspicions and at the same time. the AD was unable to rebut the concrete evidence tendered by the assessee in support of his claim. Further, the prevailing weight

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

transfer. Hence, the amount received by the assessee is undeniably in the nature of a long term capital gain (L TCG). The AO's action was based entirely on surmises and suspicions and at the same time. the AD was unable to rebut the concrete evidence tendered by the assessee in support of his claim. Further, the prevailing weight

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

transfer. Hence, the amount received by the assessee is undeniably in the nature of a long term capital gain (L TCG). The AO's action was based entirely on surmises and suspicions and at the same time. the AD was unable to rebut the concrete evidence tendered by the assessee in support of his claim. Further, the prevailing weight

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

transfer. Hence, the amount received by the assessee is undeniably in the nature of a long term capital gain (L TCG). The AO's action was based entirely on surmises and suspicions and at the same time. the AD was unable to rebut the concrete evidence tendered by the assessee in support of his claim. Further, the prevailing weight

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

transfer. Hence, the amount received by the assessee is undeniably in the nature of a long term capital gain (L TCG). The AO's action was based entirely on surmises and suspicions and at the same time. the AD was unable to rebut the concrete evidence tendered by the assessee in support of his claim. Further, the prevailing weight

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

transfer. Hence, the amount received by the assessee is undeniably in the nature of a long term capital gain (L TCG). The AO's action was based entirely on surmises and suspicions and at the same time. the AD was unable to rebut the concrete evidence tendered by the assessee in support of his claim. Further, the prevailing weight

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

transfer. Hence, the amount received by the assessee is undeniably in the nature of a long term capital gain (L TCG). The AO's action was based entirely on surmises and suspicions and at the same time. the AD was unable to rebut the concrete evidence tendered by the assessee in support of his claim. Further, the prevailing weight

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

transfer. Hence, the amount received by the assessee is undeniably in the nature of a long term capital gain (L TCG). The AO's action was based entirely on surmises and suspicions and at the same time. the AD was unable to rebut the concrete evidence tendered by the assessee in support of his claim. Further, the prevailing weight

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

transfer. Hence, the amount received by the assessee is undeniably in the nature of a long term capital gain (L TCG). The AO's action was based entirely on surmises and suspicions and at the same time. the AD was unable to rebut the concrete evidence tendered by the assessee in support of his claim. Further, the prevailing weight

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

20,99,520/- by making various additions to the income declared by the assessee. In first appeal, Id.CIT(A) has allowed partial relief and confirmed the addition of Rs.69,39,513/- by holding the long term capital gain declared by the assessee and claimed exemption u/s. 10(38) of the Act as undisclosed cash credit

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

20. This being so, as the statement recorded from the brokers, who have agreed to penny stock manipulation and the investigation report based thereon having not been relied upon by the ld. AO for the purpose of assessment, the decision relied on by the revenue in the case of Anip Rastogi & Anju Rastogi (supra) as also the decision

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.

20 10759.04 1000 1107865.24 Long term profit -880244.21 Total: 1107866 4. It was the submission that the assessee had purchased shares for Rs.2,27,627.12 and same was sold at Rs.11,07,865.24 thereby generating long term profit of Rs.8,80,244.01, which the assessee has claimed exempt. It was the submission that the Assessing Officer treated the purchase