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

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

price was paid by cheque and respondent’s bank account has been debited. The shares were also transferred into respondent‟s Demat account where it remained for more than one year. After a period of one year the shares were sold by the said broker on various dates in the Kolkatta Stock Exchange. Pursuant to sale of shares the said

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

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is annexed as Annexure-2. 8. With regard to above Arm Length Price Adjustment it is submitted that the aforesaid Arm Length Price Adjustment was bad and devoid of merits because for determination of aforesaid Arm Length Co. No.27/CTK/2018 Price Adjustment the Ld, TPO followed the TNM Method and whereas the JV followed

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

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is annexed as Annexure-2. 8. With regard to above Arm Length Price Adjustment it is submitted that the aforesaid Arm Length Price Adjustment was bad and devoid of merits because for determination of aforesaid Arm Length Co. No.27/CTK/2018 Price Adjustment the Ld, TPO followed the TNM Method and whereas the JV followed

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

3 | 15 Assessment Year : 2014-15 substantial number of shares dealt with by the assessee the average 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

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.

3 | 13 Assessment Year : 2014-15 identical circumstances, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Smt. Bimla Devi Singhania in ITA No.212/CTK/2019 order dated 6.7.2022 as also the decision in the case of Sandeep Kumar Agarwal in ITA No.80/CTK/2024 order dated 28.5.2024, had deleted the addition, which orders have been upheld by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional

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.

3 | 13 Assessment Year : 2014-15 identical circumstances, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Smt. Bimla Devi Singhania in ITA No.212/CTK/2019 order dated 6.7.2022 as also the decision in the case of Sandeep Kumar Agarwal in ITA No.80/CTK/2024 order dated 28.5.2024, had deleted the addition, which orders have been upheld by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

3 of said bill, on or from the appointed date notwithstanding anything contained in the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 or any other law for the time being in force, the specified bank notes which have ceased to be legal tender, in view of the notification of the Government of India dated 08.11.2016 shall cease to be liabilities

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. HOTEL SUKHAMAYA PVT. LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in overlooking the ratio of the judgment in Grihalakshmi Vision vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-1, Kozhikode [2015] and Commissioner of income-tax-1, Kanpur vs. Sunil Sagar Co. [2017]? 4. Any other ground of appeal that may arise at the time of hearing. 5. Since all the appeals

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. HOTEL SUKHAMAYA PVT. LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in overlooking the ratio of the judgment in Grihalakshmi Vision vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-1, Kozhikode [2015] and Commissioner of income-tax-1, Kanpur vs. Sunil Sagar Co. [2017]? 4. Any other ground of appeal that may arise at the time of hearing. 5. Since all the appeals

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

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

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