M/S. SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD.,BELPAHAR, JHARSUGUDA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

capital for completion of the contract and so it was entitled to 14 IT(SS)A No.77 & ITA Nos.320,296,88, 141,89,142,13/CTK/2023 &CO No.02/CTK/2023 receive the entire contract receipts. In such a case, we are satisfied that the assessee has itself carried on the works contract and was not a sub-contractor carrying on the works contract

M/S. SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD.,BELPAHAR, JHARSUGUDA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

capital for completion of the contract and so it was entitled to 14 IT(SS)A No.77 & ITA Nos.320,296,88, 141,89,142,13/CTK/2023 &CO No.02/CTK/2023 receive the entire contract receipts. In such a case, we are satisfied that the assessee has itself carried on the works contract and was not a sub-contractor carrying on the works contract

ASST. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, SAMBALPUR vs. SHREE BALAJI ENGICON LIMITED, BELPAHAR RS

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

capital for completion of the contract and so it was entitled to 14 IT(SS)A No.77 & ITA Nos.320,296,88, 141,89,142,13/CTK/2023 &CO No.02/CTK/2023 receive the entire contract receipts. In such a case, we are satisfied that the assessee has itself carried on the works contract and was not a sub-contractor carrying on the works contract

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD., JHARSUGUDA

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

capital for completion of the contract and so it was entitled to 14 IT(SS)A No.77 & ITA Nos.320,296,88, 141,89,142,13/CTK/2023 &CO No.02/CTK/2023 receive the entire contract receipts. In such a case, we are satisfied that the assessee has itself carried on the works contract and was not a sub-contractor carrying on the works contract

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD., JHARSUGUDA

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

capital for completion of the contract and so it was entitled to 14 IT(SS)A No.77 & ITA Nos.320,296,88, 141,89,142,13/CTK/2023 &CO No.02/CTK/2023 receive the entire contract receipts. In such a case, we are satisfied that the assessee has itself carried on the works contract and was not a sub-contractor carrying on the works contract

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD., JHARSUGUDA

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

capital for completion of the contract and so it was entitled to 14 IT(SS)A No.77 & ITA Nos.320,296,88, 141,89,142,13/CTK/2023 &CO No.02/CTK/2023 receive the entire contract receipts. In such a case, we are satisfied that the assessee has itself carried on the works contract and was not a sub-contractor carrying on the works contract

M/S. SHREE BAALAJI ENGICONS LIMITED,JHARSUGUDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

capital for completion of the contract and so it was entitled to 14 IT(SS)A No.77 & ITA Nos.320,296,88, 141,89,142,13/CTK/2023 &CO No.02/CTK/2023 receive the entire contract receipts. In such a case, we are satisfied that the assessee has itself carried on the works contract and was not a sub-contractor carrying on the works contract

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

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

120-121, 122- 124 and 17-19 for AYs 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 respectively. 6. Subsequently, notice dated 12-07-2023 was issued by the learned PCIT, Bhubaneshwar u/s 263 of the Act for AYs 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 wherein the order passed u/s 260 of the Act dated 10-10-2022 was proposed

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

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

120-121, 122- 124 and 17-19 for AYs 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 respectively. 6. Subsequently, notice dated 12-07-2023 was issued by the learned PCIT, Bhubaneshwar u/s 263 of the Act for AYs 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 wherein the order passed u/s 260 of the Act dated 10-10-2022 was proposed

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

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

120-121, 122- 124 and 17-19 for AYs 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 respectively. 6. Subsequently, notice dated 12-07-2023 was issued by the learned PCIT, Bhubaneshwar u/s 263 of the Act for AYs 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 wherein the order passed u/s 260 of the Act dated 10-10-2022 was proposed

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.

120 138706.31 27.12.13 160 23529.68 30.12.13 20 41110.81 31.12.13 5 5959.47 2.1.14 100 116635.59 3.1.14 20 22844.54 6.1.14 30 34674.05 7.1.14 11 12396.18 9.1.14 22 24940.5 31.1.14 20 18117.84 3.2.14 43 37063.63 4.2.14 11 9135.07 5.2.14 50 39523.07 6.2.14 20 15715.33 7.2.14 26 20158.09 11.2.14 9 6795.95 24.2.14 20 10759.04 1000 1107865.24 Long term profit -880244.21 Total: 1107866 4

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.

120 138706.31 27.12.13 160 23529.68 30.12.13 20 41110.81 31.12.13 5 5959.47 2.1.14 100 116635.59 3.1.14 20 22844.54 6.1.14 30 34674.05 7.1.14 11 12396.18 9.1.14 22 24940.5 31.1.14 20 18117.84 3.2.14 43 37063.63 4.2.14 11 9135.07 5.2.14 50 39523.07 6.2.14 20 15715.33 7.2.14 26 20158.09 11.2.14 9 6795.95 24.2.14 20 10759.04 1000 1107865.24 Long term profit -880244.21 Total: 1107866 4

SATYARANJAN CHAND,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialassessment Year : 2015-16 Satyaranjan Satyaranjan Chand, Chand, Plot Vs. Dy. Dy. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of 3Rd No.Ga-722, 722, 3 Floor, Income Income Tax, Tax, Circle Circle-2(1), Kalinga Nagar, K Kalinga Nagar, K-3-B, Po: Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Ghatikia, Bhubaneswar. Ghatikia, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aajpc 7891 A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agrawal Walla, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/11 11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11 /11/2023 O R D E R

4 clearly showed that the document number of the sale deed is prior to document number of gift deed, which clearly showed that when the vacant plot was transferred, the assessee owned more than one residential house and consequently, the proviso to section 54F came into play and the assessee was not entitled to exemption u/s.54F. He placed reliance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

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

b) maybe\nmade out. There is nothing, however, in the reasons indicated by the\nAssessing Officer in the present case to suggest that any such income\nhas accrued to any person or the Assessee. The reasons do not\nindicate that the Assessing Officer has formed any belief that under-\npricing was adopted by the Assessee as a device by which

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

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

b) maybe\nmade out. There is nothing, however, in the reasons indicated by the\nAssessing Officer in the present case to suggest that any such income\nhas accrued to any person or the Assessee. The reasons do not\nindicate that the Assessing Officer has formed any belief that under-\npricing was adopted by the Assessee as a device by which

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

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

b) maybe\nmade out. There is nothing, however, in the reasons indicated by the\nAssessing Officer in the present case to suggest that any such income\nhas accrued to any person or the Assessee. The reasons do not\nindicate that the Assessing Officer has formed any belief that under-\npricing was adopted by the Assessee as a device by which

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

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

b) maybe\nmade out. There is nothing, however, in the reasons indicated by the\nAssessing Officer in the present case to suggest that any such income\nhas accrued to any person or the Assessee. The reasons do not\nindicate that the Assessing Officer has formed any belief that under-\npricing was adopted by the Assessee as a device by which