NETRANANDA NAYAK,PURI vs. ITO, PURI WARD, PURI

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2013-14 Netrananda Netrananda Nayak, Nayak, At: At: Vs. Income Tax Officer, Puri Income Tax Officer, Puri Khandiabandha, Khandiabandha, Po: Po: Word, Puri. Gopinathpur, Atharnala, Puri Gopinathpur, Atharnala, Puri Pan/Gir No. No.Ajspn 1567 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Niranjan Panda, Ca Niranjan Panda, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 27/01/20 2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/01/20 025 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 30.6.2023 In Appeal No. Cit(A),Bhubaneswar 30.6.2023 In Appeal No. Cit(A),Bhubaneswar- 2/10186/2019-20 20 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Shri Niranjan Niranjan Panda, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. , Sr. Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

gains. However, a perusal of page 42 of PB which is a certificate issued by the Amin shows as follows: P a g e 12 | 18 Assessment Year : 2013-14 “ 12. Therefore, the dispute is with regard to the distance from the Muncipality limits to the subject land. As per the Notification No.SO.9447 File No.164/3/87-ITA.I)] dated 6.1.1994, the land

KALPANA MISHRA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD 5(4), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अपील संसंसंसं/Ita No.491/Ctk/2024 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) वष" Kalpana Mishra, Vs Ito Ward-5(4), Bhubaneswar Plot No.B-87/A, Chandaka Industrial Estate, Patia, Bhubaneswar-751024 Pan No. :Alfpm 2864 E (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. िनधा"रती िनधा"रती क" िनधा"रती िनधा"रती क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By ओर : Shri B.R.Pattnaik, Ca राज"व राज"व क" राज"व राज"व क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2025 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.03.2024, Passed By The Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1062168195(1) For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, On The Following Grounds :- 1. Hon'Ble Cit(Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Learned Ao Even Though The Learned Ao Has Exceeded His Jurisdiction In A Limited Scrutiny Case Selected Under Cass Only To Examine Whether The Investment & Income Relating To Securities Transactions Are Duly Disclosed Or Not & Added A Sum Of Rs.44,00,000.00 U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Without Obtaining Prior Administrative Approval Of The Concerned Pr. Cit/Cit As Prescribed In Circular F. No. 225/402/2018/Ita.Ii, Dated 28- 11-2018 & Instruction No.5/2016 [F.No.225/269/2015-

capital gains" or under "profits and gains of business or profession", it is essential to know the manner of disclosure of investment/accounting relating to listed shares and securities transactions 3.1.20. Accordingly, the direction was issued in this 'limited scrutiny' to examine whether the investment and income relating to securities transactions are duly disclosed. 3.1.21. The 'limited scrutiny' was never initiated

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

STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ODISHA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARAD 5(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed and stay petition stands dismissed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwals.P.No.11/Ctk/2024 Assessment Year :2017-18 State Pollution Control Board State Pollution Control Board, Vs. Ito, Ward 5(2), Plot No.A-118, Paribesh Bhawan, 118, Paribesh Bhawan, Bhubaneswar Nilakantha Nagar, Agar, Nayapali, Nayapali, Unit-Vii, Bhubaneswar Neswar Pan/Gir No.Aaals 2490 J Aaals 2490 J (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agrawalla, Ca Walla, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/10/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/10/20 024 O R D E R Per Bench

gains, if any, from disposal of assets as per Government financial guideline and rules of Government of Maharashtra. The exemption in the CBDT notification dt. 29th March, 2016 is valid for financial years 2015-16 to 2018-19. Considering the facts that the assessee-Board is under complete superintendence, and control of the State Government financially as well as administratively

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

42,25,780/ incurred by the assessee falls within its ambit Section\n37(1) of the IT Act, 1961 and the Explanation appended to it are\nreproduced as under\nSection 37(1): Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature\ndescribed in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital\nexpenditure or personal expenses

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

42,25,780/ incurred by the assessee falls within its ambit Section\n37(1) of the IT Act, 1961 and the Explanation appended to it are\nreproduced as under\nSection 37(1): Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature\ndescribed in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital\nexpenditure or personal expenses

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

42,25,780/ incurred by the assessee falls within its ambit Section\n37(1) of the IT Act, 1961 and the Explanation appended to it are\nreproduced as under\nSection 37(1): Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature\ndescribed in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital\nexpenditure or personal expenses

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

42,25,780/ incurred by the assessee falls within its ambit Section\n37(1) of the IT Act, 1961 and the Explanation appended to it are\nreproduced as under\nSection 37(1): Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature\ndescribed in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital\nexpenditure or personal expenses

SHWETA AGARWAL,ROURKELA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ROURKELA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.140/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Shweta Agarwal, Vs Ito, Ward-1, Rourkela O-18, Civil Township, Rourkela Odisha-769004 Pan No. :Auhpa 4567 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Jaish Joshi, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 01/12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Mumbai, Dated 17.12.2024 For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Only Issue In The Assessee’S Appeal Is Against The Actin Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Disallowance Of The Claim Of The Assessee U/S.10(38) Of The Act In Respect Of 70,000 Shares Of Kailash Auto Sold On 14.11.2015 For A Consideration Of Rs.15,82,745/- & A Claim Of Exemption U/S.10(38) Of The Act To An Extent Of Rs.14,42,732/-. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Issue Is Squarely Covered By The Decision Of The Coordinate Bench Of The Tribunal In The Case Of Ridhi Bagaria, Passed In Ita No.76/Ctk/2023, Order Dated 18.05.2023. It Was Also Submitted That Very Same Issue Has Been Upheld By The Hon’Ble

42,732/-. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ridhi Bagaria, passed in ITA No.76/CTK/2023, order dated 18.05.2023. It was also submitted that very same issue has been upheld by the Hon’ble 2 Jurisdictional High Court in the case

MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD.,BURLA, SAMBALPUR. vs. DCIT CIRCLE2(1), SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue being ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Girish Agrawalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.14 To 17/Ctk/2023 & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.41/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2016-2017 To 2020-2021) Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Vs Acit/Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur-768020 Pan No. :Aabcm 5188 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.70 To 73/Ctk/2023 & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.147/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2016-2017 To 2020-2021) Acit/Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Vs Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur-768020 Pan No. :Aabcm 5188 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.69/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Acit/Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Vs Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur-768020 Pan No. :Aabcm 5188 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Poddar, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :

section 35D. In any case, there is nothing on record to establish, or even suggest, that expenses incurred on removal of overburden at the surface level, which were capital expenditure in nature, have been claimed as revenue deduction on the strength of coal mining in another piece of land within that coal mine. 11 ITA Nos.14-17&41/CTK/2023 ITA Nos.70-73&147/CTK/2023

MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD.,BURLA, SAMBALPUR. vs. DCIT CIRCLE2(1), SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue being ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Girish Agrawalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.14 To 17/Ctk/2023 & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.41/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2016-2017 To 2020-2021) Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Vs Acit/Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur-768020 Pan No. :Aabcm 5188 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.70 To 73/Ctk/2023 & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.147/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2016-2017 To 2020-2021) Acit/Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Vs Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur-768020 Pan No. :Aabcm 5188 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.69/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Acit/Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Vs Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur-768020 Pan No. :Aabcm 5188 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Poddar, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :

section 35D. In any case, there is nothing on record to establish, or even suggest, that expenses incurred on removal of overburden at the surface level, which were capital expenditure in nature, have been claimed as revenue deduction on the strength of coal mining in another piece of land within that coal mine. 11 ITA Nos.14-17&41/CTK/2023 ITA Nos.70-73&147/CTK/2023

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

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

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

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