KANAK BHANJ DEO,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-5(3), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.21/Ctk/2024 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Kanak Bhanj Deo, Vs Ito, Ward-5(3), Bhubaneswar Plot No.2093/3341, Lane-5, Jaydev Vihar, Bhubaneswar, Odisha-751013 Pan No. :Angpb 4721 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri N.R.Biswal, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/07/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 16.11.2023, In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1058002817(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Has Entered Into Joint Development Agreement (Jda) With The Builder On 13.01.2012 & Further Executed A Distribution Agreement On 05.11.2014 According To Which The Land Of The Assessee Was Given To The Developer For Construction Of Multistoried Building & As Per Distribution Agreement, In Consideration The Assessee Is Entitled For 26% Area In The Constructed Building. During The Impugned Year The Assessee Has Got Four Flats Having Total Area Of 4220.23 Sq.Ft. (Including 92.85 Sq.Ft. Additional Area) As The Sale Consideration Being 26% Of The Newly Constructed Building. Out Of The Said

gain the same proportion as the cost of the new asset bears to the net consideration, shall not be charged under section 45: [Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply where- (a)the assessee,- (i)owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset

ACIT (EXEMPTIONS), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. PEOPLES FORUM, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and cross objections filed

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2009-2010 Acit (Exemptions), Aayakar Vs. M/S. Peoples Forum, Plot Bhavan, Bhubaneswar. No.Hig 44, Dharma Vihar, Khandagiri, Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. Aaatp 2214 R (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

capital and funds to all segments of society so that the production function in the underprivileged segments can take off after their basic needs are addressed. Recent Governments at the Central level have commenced the disbursement of moneys through direct cash transfers (as also stated as being continued in the Budget Speech dated 28.02.2015 of the Hon'ble Union Finance

MR. MANOJ KUMAR NAYAK,BHUBANESWAR vs. DDIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

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

45,912/- being the salary income in the capacity of a crew member of a foreign ship which was received outside India and is not deemed to have been received by or on his behalf in India and claimed for exemption u/s.5 of the Act. 13. Ld. DR before us relied on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court

M/S. NABADIGANT EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed

gain or benefit of the persons specified in section 13(3) of the Act or for any other business enterprise or entity which comes within scope of this said provision. Ld. AR also drew our attention towards written submissions and submitted that the ld. CIT(A) wrongly observed that if the assessee is extending loan then Section 11(5

M/S. NABADIGANT EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed

gain or benefit of the persons specified in section 13(3) of the Act or for any other business enterprise or entity which comes within scope of this said provision. Ld. AR also drew our attention towards written submissions and submitted that the ld. CIT(A) wrongly observed that if the assessee is extending loan then Section 11(5

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-

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 to examine the source of investment

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

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

capital gains figure in the wrong column of the IT return, which had admittedly triggered this dispute. In our considered opinion, the error committed by the assessee is only a clerical error for which the assessee cannot be fastened with this huge tax liability. We find that the id CITA had duly examined the entire documents in this regard such

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

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

capital gains figure in the wrong column of the IT return, which had admittedly triggered this dispute. In our considered opinion, the error committed by the assessee is only a clerical error for which the assessee cannot be fastened with this huge tax liability. We find that the id CITA had duly examined the entire documents in this regard such

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

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

capital gains figure in the wrong column of the IT return, which had admittedly triggered this dispute. In our considered opinion, the error committed by the assessee is only a clerical error for which the assessee cannot be fastened with this huge tax liability. We find that the id CITA had duly examined the entire documents in this regard such

LAXMIDHAR PANDA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-2, BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-2010

capital gains tax u/s.2(47) read with section 45 of the Act. Accordingly, he brought to tax the market value of 14 flats less the value of proportionate value of the land and added Rs.4,05,87,159/- to the income of the assessee. 5

NATIONAL ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Girish Agrawalassessment Year : 2016-17 National National Aluminium Aluminium Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle -1(2), Company Limited., Nalco Company Limited., Nalco Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Bhawan, Bhawan, Nayapalli, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaacn 7449 M (Appellant) ) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Ca & Shri P. Venugopal Rao, Ca Venugopal Rao, Ca Revenue By : Dr.Abani Kanta Nayak, Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/11 11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/11 /11/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

section remaining of tax audit 43B unpaid on report which March 31st ever is Mar of the earlier previous year under audit 1 2 3 4 5 6 A Bonus 1,11,880 - 1,11,880 B Gratuity 8,60,13,944 - 8,60,13,944 Net paid as on the date of signing of audit report C Cont

HI-TECH ESTATES & PROMOTERS PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

capital gains.". 43. From the perusal of above section it is crystal clear that before the insertion of this section there was no legal obligation on the part of the assessee to follow percentage completion method only. Before insertion of this section person engaged in construction and service contracts were free to follow either the project completion/ Completed project method

ITO, BHUBANESWAR vs. ORISSA COMPUTER APPLICATION CENTRE, BHUBANESWAR

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

5%, from which it is crystal clear that the Appellant does not have any control over its technical consultant fees rather the Govt, has decided the same and directed the Appellant to acted upon. . The technical fees collected by the Appellant not to achieve any profit from trading practice, but it is just like payment made by the Govt, from

ACIT, ROURKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA vs. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

In the result, appeals of the revenue and assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Manish Borad & Manish Borad & Manish Boradassessment Year : 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No. No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessment Year : 2015-16 C.O. No.01/Ctk/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Bhadra S.C. Bhadra , Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20 /10/ 20 / 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10 / 12 12/2021 O R D E R Per Bench The Cross The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Assessee Are Directed Against The Or Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 Der Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 For The P A G E 1 | 62

section 145 (3) and order of the Madras High Court in the case of Marg Ltd(supra), he cannot proceed further without rejecting Books of Account to make any addition to the profit derived, by taking a provisional costing figure, submitted by the appellant herself before the IBM. 20. We note that the assessee being raising the Iron Ore from

SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK,ROURKELA vs. ACIT, ROURKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA

In the result, appeals of the revenue and assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Manish Borad & Manish Borad & Manish Boradassessment Year : 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No. No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessment Year : 2015-16 C.O. No.01/Ctk/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Bhadra S.C. Bhadra , Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20 /10/ 20 / 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10 / 12 12/2021 O R D E R Per Bench The Cross The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Assessee Are Directed Against The Or Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 Der Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 For The P A G E 1 | 62

section 145 (3) and order of the Madras High Court in the case of Marg Ltd(supra), he cannot proceed further without rejecting Books of Account to make any addition to the profit derived, by taking a provisional costing figure, submitted by the appellant herself before the IBM. 20. We note that the assessee being raising the Iron Ore from

DR. SUBASH CHANDRA JENA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.40 To 45/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Ays. :2010-2011 To 2015-2016) Dr. Subash Chandra Jena, Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.5/52, Gajapati Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Abrpj 2247 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, I.E. One Dated 11.12.2018 For The Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 & Other Dated 28.11.2018 For The Assessment Years 2012-2013 To 2015-2016. 2. First We Shall Take Up Appeals Of The Assessee For Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 In Ita Nos.40 & 41/Ctk/2019, Wherein The Sole Issue Involved Is With Regard To Confirming The Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was Working In Government Of Odisha As A Doctor & Also Engaged In Private Practice

5 ITA No.40-45/CTK/2019 8. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, we find that in consequence of search, the AO issued notice u/s.153A of the Act and in response to which the assessee filed his return on 16.02.2017 declosing total income of Rs.5,82,279/- and subsequently it was revised

DR. SUBASH CHANDRA JENA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, , CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.40 To 45/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Ays. :2010-2011 To 2015-2016) Dr. Subash Chandra Jena, Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.5/52, Gajapati Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Abrpj 2247 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, I.E. One Dated 11.12.2018 For The Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 & Other Dated 28.11.2018 For The Assessment Years 2012-2013 To 2015-2016. 2. First We Shall Take Up Appeals Of The Assessee For Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 In Ita Nos.40 & 41/Ctk/2019, Wherein The Sole Issue Involved Is With Regard To Confirming The Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was Working In Government Of Odisha As A Doctor & Also Engaged In Private Practice

5 ITA No.40-45/CTK/2019 8. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, we find that in consequence of search, the AO issued notice u/s.153A of the Act and in response to which the assessee filed his return on 16.02.2017 declosing total income of Rs.5,82,279/- and subsequently it was revised

DR. SUBASH CHANDRA JENA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, , CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.40 To 45/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Ays. :2010-2011 To 2015-2016) Dr. Subash Chandra Jena, Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.5/52, Gajapati Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Abrpj 2247 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, I.E. One Dated 11.12.2018 For The Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 & Other Dated 28.11.2018 For The Assessment Years 2012-2013 To 2015-2016. 2. First We Shall Take Up Appeals Of The Assessee For Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 In Ita Nos.40 & 41/Ctk/2019, Wherein The Sole Issue Involved Is With Regard To Confirming The Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was Working In Government Of Odisha As A Doctor & Also Engaged In Private Practice

5 ITA No.40-45/CTK/2019 8. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, we find that in consequence of search, the AO issued notice u/s.153A of the Act and in response to which the assessee filed his return on 16.02.2017 declosing total income of Rs.5,82,279/- and subsequently it was revised