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

38) in respect of its dividend income and long term capital gains on sale of shares respectively in its return of income for A.Y. 2014-15. In fact, in the return of income, the Assessee had admittedly sought to exclude its dividend income and long term capital gains from sale of shares under section 10 as is evident from

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

38) in respect of its dividend income and long term capital gains on sale of shares respectively in its return of income for A.Y. 2014-15. In fact, in the return of income, the Assessee had admittedly sought to exclude its dividend income and long term capital gains from sale of shares under section 10 as is evident from

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

38) in respect of its dividend income and long term capital gains on sale of shares respectively in its return of income for A.Y. 2014-15. In fact, in the return of income, the Assessee had admittedly sought to exclude its dividend income and long term capital gains from sale of shares under section 10 as is evident from

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

38) in respect of its dividend income and long term capital gains on sale of shares respectively in its return of income for A.Y. 2014-15. In fact, in the return of income, the Assessee had admittedly sought to exclude its dividend income and long term capital gains from sale of shares under section 10 as is evident from

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

38) in respect of its dividend income and long term capital gains on sale of shares respectively in its return of income for A.Y. 2014-15. In fact, in the return of income, the Assessee had admittedly sought to exclude its dividend income and long term capital gains from sale of shares under section 10 as is evident from

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

38) in respect of its dividend income and long term capital gains on sale of shares respectively in its return of income for A.Y. 2014-15. In fact, in the return of income, the Assessee had admittedly sought to exclude its dividend income and long term capital gains from sale of shares under section 10 as is evident from

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

38) in respect of its dividend income and long term capital gains on sale of shares respectively in its return of income for A.Y. 2014-15. In fact, in the return of income, the Assessee had admittedly sought to exclude its dividend income and long term capital gains from sale of shares under section 10 as is evident from

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

38) in respect of its dividend income and long term capital gains on sale of shares respectively in its return of income for A.Y. 2014-15. In fact, in the return of income, the Assessee had admittedly sought to exclude its dividend income and long term capital gains from sale of shares under section 10 as is evident from

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

38) in respect of its dividend income and long term capital gains on sale of shares respectively in its return of income for A.Y. 2014-15. In fact, in the return of income, the Assessee had admittedly sought to exclude its dividend income and long term capital gains from sale of shares under section 10 as is evident from

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

38) in respect of its dividend income and long term capital gains on sale of shares respectively in its return of income for A.Y. 2014-15. In fact, in the return of income, the Assessee had admittedly sought to exclude its dividend income and long term capital gains from sale of shares under section 10 as is evident from

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

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

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

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

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

10. On appeal, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the DRP in holding that the rates at which the power was sold in the UP region by the assessee's power units could be considered as an internal CUP and the rates at which power was purchased by the assessee from DGVCL and JVVNL in Rajasthan and Gujarat region were

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