PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,BHUBANESWAR vs. SEKHAR KUMAR MOHAPATRA

Bench: DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI,MR. JUSTICE GOURISHANKAR SATAPATHY

36,300/- (being 50% of the total consideration of subject property) and also Rs. 1,05,670/- as cash in hand on 31.03.2011. It is further argued that the learned appellate tribunal has wrongly held that the payment made to the developer M/s Ashicon Housing Pvt. Ltd. by the purchaser Arun Kumar Agarwal as the proceeds of alleged crime

M/S.SHEETAL REAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, the appeal fails and the substantial questions of law

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE R.K.PATTANAIK

price. Further, the volume and frequency of transactions also leads to the conclusion that it is apparent that the transactions are not one of investment but it is that of trading. Dealing with the argument of the assessee that 95% of its gains were by way of long-term capital gains, the CIT(A) held that the motive of those

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S.UTKAL ALUMINA INTERNATIONAL LTD.

Bench: MR. JUSTICE K. S. JHAVERI (CJ),MR. JUSTICE K.R.MOHAPATRA

transfer by way of mortgage the urban land bearing No. A-I, Radhey Puri, Delhi-51. DW-2 22. Copy of Grant of mortgage permission in respect of plot no.8, Sector B &C for which loan has been sanctioned for construction of building thereon. DW-2 23. Copy of No objection certificate to mortgage the plot no.8, Sector

MAHESWAR PANDA vs. I.T.O., WARD-2(1)

Bench: DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI,MR. JUSTICE GOURISHANKAR SATAPATHY

transferring the burden of paying the amount of compensation from respondent no.1-Insurance Company to the appellants herein.” 27. In the present matter, it is not the case that the victim himself was sitting on the mudguard of the tractor, rather he was sitting in the trolley which was used for the agricultural purpose as they were carrying the rice straw