UDAYKUMAR VYAS,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 1 (5), BSNL RTTC BUILDING

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Royudaykumar Vyas, Ito, Ward – 1(5) Flat No. 402, Lepresting Vs Nagpur Apartment, Plot No. 105- 106, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur. Pan : Aarpv 4578 K Assessee Respondent

147 of the Act, dated 26.12.2019 by the ITO, Ward-1(5), Nagpur for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) and AO failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant is regularly engaged

SUDHANSU SEKHAR RAY,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year :2007-08

Section 147 in the 'Individual status as the IHUF's alleged income from capital-gains of Rs. 1,51,84,42 6/- and house

SHRI NIRMAL CHANDRA OJHA,BALASORE vs. ITO, WARD-1, BALASORE, BALASORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.95/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Sri Nirmal Chandra Ojha, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Balasore, At: Mobarakpur, Soro, Balasore Dist: Balasore-756045 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Asvpk 7004 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/04/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 05/04/2019 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Cuttack, Dated 23.01.2019 Passed In First Appeal No.0327/2015-16 For The Assessment Year 2011-2012. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Follows:- 1. For That, The Impugned Order Of Reassessment So Passed By The Learned A.O. Is Premature, Without Jurisdiction & Without The Authority Of Law, As Such, The Same Needs To Be Quashed In The Interest Of Justice. 2. For That, The Learned C.I.T.(A) Should Have Quashed The Impugned Order Of Reassessment, Particularly When, The Same Is Without Jurisdiction, As Such The Impugned Order Of Reassessment, Being Not Sustainable In The Eye Of Law Is Liable To Be Quashed In The Interest Of Justice. 3. For That, The Learned C.I.T.(A) Should Not Have Ignored The Explanation As Well As The Cash Flow Statement & Capital Account Furnished By The Appellant & Should Not Have Confirmed The Addition Made By The Learned A.O., Treating The Same As Undisclosed Investment.

Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) and submitted that on receipt of reply to notice u/s.148 of the Act filed by the assessee, the AO himself noted that “The assessee proved that no capital gain

SHRI ANTARYAMI KAR,BALASORE vs. ITO, WARD-1, , BALASORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.94/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Sri Antaryami Kar, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Balasore, S/O-Bhagirathi Kar, District : Balasore At-Podapatna, Oupada, Dist: Balasore-759049 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Asvpk 7004 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/04/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 05/04/2019 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Cuttack, Dated 23.01.2019 Passed In First Appeal No.0328/2015-16 For The Assessment Year 2011-2012. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Follows:- 1. For That, The Impugned Order Of Reassessment So Passed By The Learned A.O. Is Premature, Without Jurisdiction & Without The Authority Of Law, As Such, The Same Needs To Be Quashed In The Interest Of Justice. 2. For That, The Learned C.I.T.(A) Should Have Quashed The Impugned Order Of Reassessment, Particularly When, The Same Is Without Jurisdiction, As Such The Impugned Order Of Reassessment, Being Not Sustainable In The Eye Of Law Is Liable To Be Quashed In The Interest Of Justice. 3. For That, The Learned C.I.T.(A) Should Not Have Ignored The Explanation As Well As The Cash Flow Statement & Capital Account Furnished By The Appellant & Should Not Have Confirmed The Addition Made By The Learned A.O., Treating The Same As Undisclosed Investment.

Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) and submitted that on receipt of reply to notice u/s.148 of the Act filed by the assessee, the AO himself noted that “The assessee proved that no capital gain

ABHAYA PRASAD PANDA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, BHUBANESWAR

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2007-2008

147 for the impugned period are not only illegal but also without jurisdiction. 2. For that the Ld. Assessing Officer has wrongly assumed jurisdiction on the face of the fact that though the Developer Agreement was executed on 15.01.2007, but however, the delivery of possession was given only on 01.07.2007 and in furtherance to that the building plan was approved

ITO, BHUBANESWAR vs. ABHAYA PRASAD PANDA, BHUBANESWAR

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2007-2008

147 for the impugned period are not only illegal but also without jurisdiction. 2. For that the Ld. Assessing Officer has wrongly assumed jurisdiction on the face of the fact that though the Developer Agreement was executed on 15.01.2007, but however, the delivery of possession was given only on 01.07.2007 and in furtherance to that the building plan was approved

M/S. ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiam/S Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd., Omc House, Post Box No.34, Bhubaneswar-01 Pan No.Aaaco 3324 L …………….. Assessee Versus Acit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar ………………Revenue

capital gain or casual income was also not addressed by the Revenue. In the light of the same, in the facts of the case, we find that the Assessing Officer was justified in issuing the notice under section 148 of the Act on May 17,2000. 11. Original record was produced before us by Shri Alok Sharma. The Assessing Officer

BISWAJIT BEHERA,BHUBANESWAR vs. I.T.O. WARD-4(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathanassessment Year: 2012-2013 Biswajit Behera, 10, Janpath Satya Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar Appellant Respondent Pan No.Aeppb 7779 G Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agarwalla, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing: 4.1.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 4.1.2024 Order

capital gains derived on the purchase and sale of shares of BSR Finance & Constructions Ltd. It was the submission that on appeal, the ld CIT(A) at page 42 para 7.5 of his order mentions that the assessee has not disputed the recording of the reasons by the Assessing Officer and there was no evidence available to substantiate the claim

RASHMI RANJAN BEURA,BHUBANESWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

capital gains. Accordingly, the JAO on the basis of CRIU/VRU data in the record, has reopened the case as the assessee has purchased and sold properties not on behalf of companies to the tune of Rs.56,64,000/- & Rs.18,98,000/-, respectively and accordingly added to the total income of the assessee. It was submission that in the appeal before

SAI SIMRAN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(1), BHUBANESWAR,ODISHA

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

section 147 to 151 of the Act and therefore the reassessment order is liable to be quashed. 3. That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in facts in circumstances in confirming the additions of Rs.5,56,94,020 as short term capital gain

SAI SIMRAN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,NFAC,DELHI, NFAC DELHI

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

section 147 to 151 of the Act and therefore the reassessment order is liable to be quashed. 3. That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in facts in circumstances in confirming the additions of Rs.5,56,94,020 as short term capital gain

SAI SIMRAN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR,ODISHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

section 147 to 151 of the Act and therefore the reassessment order is liable to be quashed. 3. That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in facts in circumstances in confirming the additions of Rs.5,56,94,020 as short term capital gain

SAI SIMRAN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR,ODISHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

section 147 to 151 of the Act and therefore the reassessment order is liable to be quashed. 3. That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in facts in circumstances in confirming the additions of Rs.5,56,94,020 as short term capital gain

ACIT, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for the assessment years

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

gains from business. The CIT(A) on perusal of Annual reports & account of the assessee for the financial year 2009-2010, observed that the assessee has shown profit on sale of assets of Rs.1589.25 lakhs under the head “other income” as per Schedule-4 to P&L account and claimed as loss on sale/discarded assets of Rs.33.11 lakhs. Therefore

EASTERN ENGINEERING VENTURE,ANGUL vs. ITO, ANGUL WARD, ANGUL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year: 2009-2010

capital paid to the partners made under section 184(5) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) even though assessment is completed under section 144/147 of the Act. 4. The ld A.R. did not argue Ground Nos.1 & 2 of appeal. Thus, I deem it that the assessee is not interested in pressing these grounds of appeal

M/S. ALTRADE MINERALS PVT. LIMITED,ROURKELA vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Altrade Minerals Pvt /S. Altrade Minerals Pvt Vs. Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Ltd., C/O. Kadmawala & Co., C/O. Kadmawala & Co., Income Tax, Central Circle, Income Tax, Central Circle, C.A., C.A., Budhram Budhram Oram Oram Sambalpur Market, Market, Kachery Kachery Road, Road, Rourkela. Pan/Gir No. No.Aafca 7136 F (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.R.Sahu, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/12/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/20 024

Capital Plus Reserve & Surplus). (Rs.). 2010-11.(A.Y.2011-12) 39,43,35,181/- 44,27,51,185/- (6.2). Thus, it is presumed that the investment has been made by the assessee out of its own interest funds without utilizing the borrowed money. Accordingly there cannot be any disallowance on account of interest expense. In holding so we find support and guidance

SBI EMPLOYEES HOUSING BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-4(1), BHUBANESWAR

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 148 issued by the learned DCIT, Cirlce- 2(1), Bhubaneswar is without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Act. 3. That, the learned CIT(A) has committed serious error in not allowing expenses of Rs.95,63,963/- while computing the total income at Rs.34,35,000/- under capital gains. 4. That, the learned CIT(A) has committed

M/S- SBEP-GRIL(JOINT VENTURE),JHARSUGUDA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

section 80-IA(4) of the Act in respect of the development of eligible infrastructural facilities. 41 ITA Nos.193-195/CTK/2019 19. Ld. AR also pointed out that the assessee was assigned full responsibility to do all acts for execution and completion of work right from the beginning till handing over of the project to the contractee. The contract