KANDOI AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD.,CUTTACK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

House Property" as against the “Income from Business and Profession” as shown by the assessee, however, nowhere in the order the ld. Pr.CIT has directed the AO not to allow the deduction of expenses claimed in the profit and loss account which are in the nature of the business expenditure and has no relationship with the rental income

DCIT,CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/SD. SRB CONSULTANCY (P) LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

House Property. 4. For that when the forums below including the CIT (A) has accepted the vehicles (as reflected in the Fixed Asset Schedule) to be owned by the respondent company 8& failed to bring any material into record pointing any evidence of personal use 8s the depreciation have been allowed on year to year, the present estimated disallowance

SARADA BHUSHAN MOHANTY,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 1(1), SAMBALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year : 2009-2010

disallowance of claim of loss from house property of Rs.1,50,000/- by passing an order u/s.154 of the Act by the AO after

BISWA RANJAN PATTNAIL,ANGUL vs. ITO, DHENKANAL

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

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2006-07

house property and, accordingly, disallowed the claim and assessed the total income at Rs.3,34,530/- in an assessment under

SHREE SALASAR BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS,CUTTACK vs. ITO, WARD-02, , CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial Before Shriin Ita No.239/Ctk/2019 Assessment Year : 2010-2011

house property”. Ld counsel vehemently pointed out that in the same para, ld CIT(A) has also observed that “ the interest disallowed

MR. TAPAN KUMAR BHUYAN,SALEPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

house property is duly reflected in such Form 16, disallowed by the AO, and reassessed the appellant under the head

MR. TAPAN KUMAR BHUYAN,SALEPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

house property is duly reflected in such Form 16, disallowed by the AO, and reassessed the appellant under the head

MR. TAPAN KUMAR BHUYAN,SALEPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

house property is duly reflected in such Form 16, disallowed by the AO, and reassessed the appellant under the head

MR. TAPAN KUMAR BHUYAN,SALEPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

house property is duly reflected in such Form 16, disallowed by the AO, and reassessed the appellant under the head

RADHANATH MOHANTY,BHUBANESWAR vs. PCIT, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

disallowed; vi) the propriety of the claim of interest under the house property had not been examined by the AO; and vii) the nature

SRI MANOJ DASH,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.405/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Sri Manoj Dash, Vs Ito, Ward-2(3), Bhubaneswar Plot No.F/2, Amrita Residency Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aeopd 6174 N (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sovesh Ch. Mohanty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.01.2016, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Even The Case Was Called For Second Round For Hearing. Therefore, The Bench Proceeded To Dispose Off The Case After Considering The Arguments Of Ld. Dr & The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 3. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In This Appeal Are As Under :- 1. For That, The Impugned Order Of Assessment Passed By The Forums Below Are Not Just & Proper Under The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, As Such The Additions Made Therein Are Liable To Be Deleted In The Interest Of Justice.

house building loan of Rs.1,50,000.00, particularly when, it was disallowed by the learned A.O. on wrong interpretation of law and the Assessee is lawfully entitled for the same. The impugned disallowance, thus being not sustainable in the eye of law is liable to be allowed in the interest of justice. 6. For that, your Appellant craves leave

SURESH KUMAR DIVAKAR,SAMBALPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), , SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property, Interest income and Income from business of supply of building materials. The assessee is proprietor of two business concerns i.e. (1) Divakar Construction and (2) Manish Industries. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny 'under CASS. Accordingly, scrutiny u/s.143(3) was completed on 29.02.2016 assessed total income of Rs.2,53,16,440/- and a demand of Rs.44

SURUCHI JENA,JHARPADA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3(1), PRATYAKHA BHAWAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.207/Ctk/2024 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Suruchi Jena, Vs Acit, Circle-3(1), Partyakha Plot No.226-B, Shanti Nagar, Bhawan, Bhubaneswar Jail Road, Laxmi Sagar, Bhubaneswar, Odisha-751006 Pan No. :Aazpj 2025 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/07/2024 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 06.03.2014, In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1062072084(1) For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. The Solitary Ground Taken By The Assessee Is With Regard To Disallowance Of Deduction Claimed U/S.54F Of The Act At Rs.1,95,76,997/- Towards Investment Made In The Acquisition Of New House Property Out Of The Sale Consideration Received From The Sale Of Capital Assets. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That During The Year Under Consideration The Assessee Has Sold Four Pieces Of Land For A Total Consideration Of Rs.1,97,00,000/- & Claimed Exemption U/S.54F Of The Act For The Investment Made In The Acquisition Of House Property Out Of Such Sale

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s.54F of the Act at Rs.1,95,76,997/- towards investment made in the acquisition of new house property

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

house property excluding new asset and, therefore, is entitled to deduction u/s.54F(1) of the Act on the long term capital gains of Rs.11,35,701/- arising out of transfer of land. Hence, I set aside the orders of lower authorities and delete the disallowance

PRADEEP RAJKARAT,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.91/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Pradeep Raj Karat, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), Ofs Dp, Sf Pri Campus, Bhubaneswar Ghatikia, Bhubaneswar-29 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Abrpk 4652 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.C.Sethi, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 06/06/2019 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)- 2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 28.01.2019 Passed In First Appeal No.0455/2015- 16 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. That, The Learned Cit(A) Has Committed Serious Error In Not Quashing The Assessment Order Which Is Based On The Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As "The Act") Under The Direction Of Chief Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Odisha Region, Bhubaneswar Which Is Illegal, Without Jurisdiction & Contrary To The Provisions Of The Act & For Which The Assessment Made Under Such Illegal Notice & Is Liable To Be Quashed And/Or Annulled. 2. That, The Learned Cit (A) Has Committed Serious Error By Not Deleting The Addition Made By The Learned Assessing Officer Of Rs. 3,61,535/-. 3. That, The Learned Cit (A) Has Committed Serious Error In Not Deleting The Disallowances Made By The Learned Assessing Officer Under Hra Of Rs.33,311/- Which Is Liable To Be Allowed.

disallowance claimed u/s.24(b) of the Act at Rs.67,700/- and Rs.20,000/- u/s.80C of the Act by the assessee is allowable as the house is chargeable under the head ‘income from house property

SRI SATYABRATA PUJAPANDA,PURI vs. ITO,PURI WARD, PURI, PURI

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2015-2016 in ITA

disallowance has rightly been made by the AO and upheld by the ld. CIT(A). 5. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the paper book filed by the assessee clearly shows that the assessee has provided ledger extract of the expenses incurred towards the development of the land at pages 24 to 28 of the paper book

SRI SATYABRATA PUJAPANDA,PURI vs. ITO, PURI WARD, PURI, PURI

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2015-2016 in ITA

disallowance has rightly been made by the AO and upheld by the ld. CIT(A). 5. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the paper book filed by the assessee clearly shows that the assessee has provided ledger extract of the expenses incurred towards the development of the land at pages 24 to 28 of the paper book

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE -1(2), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. POSCO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2015-16 Dcit, Corporate Circle Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Vs. M/S. Posco India Pvt Ltd., M/S. Posco India Pvt Ltd., Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Ground Floor, Fortune Towers, Ground Floor, Fortune Towers, Zone-6, 6, Chandrasekharpur, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. No.Aadcp 6735 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) C.O.No.09/Ctk/2020 (In Ita No.423/Ctk/2019) (In Ita No.423/Ctk/2019) Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Posco India Pvt Ltd., M/S. Posco India Pvt Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Ground Floor, Fortune Towers, Ground Floor, Fortune Towers, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Zone-6, 6, Chandrasekharpur, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aadcp 6735 B Pan/Gir No.Aadcp 6735 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

house property. Likewise,a company may P a g e 11 | 16 C.O.No.09/CTK/2020 Assessment Year : 2015-16 have income from other sources.................The company may also, as in that case, keep the surplus funds in short-term deposits in order to earn interest. Such interest will be chargeable under section 56 of the Income-tax Act". Subsequently

MJSJ COAL LIMITED,ANGUL vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), BHUBANESWAR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.429/Ctk/2016, 68/Ctk/2017 & 107/Ctk/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / A.Ys :2011-2012, 2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Mjsj Coal Limited, Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Dhenkanal / At/Po:Balanda, Talcher, Ito, Ward-1(3), Bhubaneswar Dist-Angul, Odisha-759116 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcm 1095 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bal, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Citdr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 28/08/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 31/08/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-1&3, Bhubaneswar, Dated 28.04.2016, 04.11.2016 & 04.12.2017 Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0120/2014-15, 0472/15-16 & 0254/16-17, For The Assessment Years 2011-2012, 2013-2014 & 2014- 2015. 2. Since Issues The Above Appeals Are Common, Therefore, They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience We Shall Take Up Assessee’S Appeal I.E. Ita No.429/Ctk/2016 For Assessment Year 2011-2012 & The Grounds & Facts Mentioned Therein, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- Ground Of Appeal • We Are Not Agreeing With The Computation Of Tax On Interest Earn By Company Made By Assessing Officer. • During The Assessment, The Cases We Submitted To Justify Our Claim (As Mentioned In Statement Of Facts) Has Not Been Paid Any Emphasis For Deciding The Case By The A.0 & Cit (Appeal- 3),Bhubaneswar. On The Other Hand The A.0 & Cit (Appeal-3) Finally Imposed His Decision Based On The Facts Of Alkali Tuticorin Chem. & Fertilizers Ltd. In Which It Has Earned Interest On The Funds, Were Borrowed Funds Only

house property. Likewise, a company may have income from other sources.................The company may also, as in that case, keep the surplus funds in short-term deposits in order to earn interest. Such interest will be chargeable under section 56 of the Income-tax Act". Subsequently Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd (supra