LORAMITRA RATH,KAIRAPARI KOTSAHI, TANGI vs. DCIT (CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2015-16 Loramitra Loramitra Rath, Rath, Kairapari Kairapari Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kotsahi, Tangi, Cuttack Kotsahi, Tangi, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aebpr 6065 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, Ca Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr

gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall, save as otherwise provided in sections [54, 54B, [[54D, [54E, [54EA, 54EB,J 54F

ITO, WARD-3(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR vs. GAYA SANTARA, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year :2008-09

section 54F of the Act and wrong in holding the meaning assigning to word "a house" as "one house" and therefore the disallowance of exemption of capital gain

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

capital gains tax. The sale had been done on 27.12.2014. The sub-plot No.36B which consisted of a house property was on rent to the assessee’s sister namely, Stm. Amitarani Giri. She had been staying on the said house from April, 2014 and this has also been recognized by the Pr. CIT in his order passed u/s.263

LAXMINARAYAN DASH,BHUBANESWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita No.521 /Ctk/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Laxminarayan Das Laxminarayan Das Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Income Tax Officer, Ward Plot No.575-C, C, 3(3), Bhubaneswar Hubaneswar Behera Sahi Nayapali Bhubaneswar, 751012 , 751012 Pan/Gir No. No.Accpd 0726 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : S/Shri P.K.Misahra & B.N.Behera B.N.Behera, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/12/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/12/20 024 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 22/03/2024 In Appeal No.Cit(A),Bhuban Cit(A),Bhubaneswar- 2/10236/2018-19 19 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Shri B.N.Behera B.N.Behera & P.K.Mishra, Ld Ars Appeared For Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

capital gain earned by the assessee for this year. It was his request that the matter may be restored back to his file of the AO for fresh adjudication on merits with the direction to provide reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 6. In reply, ld Sr. DR supported the orders of the ld AO and CIT(A). 7. We have

KELLA TRADING COMPANY (HUF),KORAPUT vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Kella Kella Trading Trading Company Company Vs. Pr. Cit, Sambalpur Pr. Cit, Sambalpur (Huf), Kella Street, Jeypore, (Huf), Kella Street, Jeypore, Koraput-764001 764001 Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aamhk 1172 R (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C.Sethi, Ar P.C.Sethi, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit , Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/11 11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11 11/2022 O R D E R

capital gains has already been examined by the AO P a g e 3 | 7 Assessment Year : 2016-17 threadbare. The order passed u/s.263 of the Act is nothing but a change of opinion and an attempt by the Pr. CIT to impose his opinion over that of the Assessing Officer. It was the submission that

PRAFULLA KUMAR KHATEI,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2012-13

capital gain and, therefore, he was not entitled to deduction u/s.54F of the Act. He submitted that as per proviso clause (a)((i) to Section 54F

ABHAYA PRASAD PANDA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, BHUBANESWAR

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

Section 54F having complied with, the assessee is entitled to deductions/ exemption as allowed U/s. 54F of the I.T. Act, 1961, but however, the allowance of exemption to one of the residential unit, are contrary to the provisions of law & as such illegal 85 liable to be set aside. 6. That the assessee was deprived from the benefit of reasonable

ITO, BHUBANESWAR vs. ABHAYA PRASAD PANDA, BHUBANESWAR

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

Section 54F having complied with, the assessee is entitled to deductions/ exemption as allowed U/s. 54F of the I.T. Act, 1961, but however, the allowance of exemption to one of the residential unit, are contrary to the provisions of law & as such illegal 85 liable to be set aside. 6. That the assessee was deprived from the benefit of reasonable

SMT. SANJUKTA PRUSTY,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-3(5), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

54F of the IT.Act'1961. As a token of evidence the hard copies of the said return along with the Acknowledgement are enclosed in the paper book-1 submitted on 08.01.2018 &marked as Annexure-C (page-41 to 50) for your honour's kind perusal. That the above said return filed by Mr.Dalal was duly assessed by the department vide

SANGRAM KESHARI SAMANTARAY,BHUBANESWAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, BHUBANESWAR

section 54F of the Act in the context of fulfilling conditions contained therein and may possibly have no relevance to the question whether the sale of land gave rise to a long term capital gain