LALCHND RESORT PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.95 & 99/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2018-2019 & 2019-2020) Purusottama Estates & Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Resorts Private Limited, Sri Nahar, Grand Road, Puri-752001 Pan No. : Aabcp 8924 A & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.97 & 98/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018 & 2018-2019) Lalchnd Resort Private Limited, Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Plot No.6, Hotel New Marion, Janpath, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacl 7289 H & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.108 & 109/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018 & 2018-2019) Lalchnd Jewellers Private Limited Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore 4Th Floor, Lalchand Market Complex, Station Square, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacl 2556 P & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.110, 111 & 112/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018 To 2019-2020) Lalchnd Gem & Jeweller Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Private Limited, 1, Lalchand Market Complex, Station Square, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaccl 9025 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri A.K.Sabat, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/04/2022

disallowed under section 43B or under section 36(1)(va); SLP dismissed. 7.13 On perusal of the above judgments in favour of the assessee and other quoted by the Ld DR in contrast. Having two opposite opinions on the same issue, it is a moot question that which view should be appreciated. To reach on a judgment on the controversy

LALCHND RESORT PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.95 & 99/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2018-2019 & 2019-2020) Purusottama Estates & Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Resorts Private Limited, Sri Nahar, Grand Road, Puri-752001 Pan No. : Aabcp 8924 A & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.97 & 98/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018 & 2018-2019) Lalchnd Resort Private Limited, Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Plot No.6, Hotel New Marion, Janpath, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacl 7289 H & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.108 & 109/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018 & 2018-2019) Lalchnd Jewellers Private Limited Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore 4Th Floor, Lalchand Market Complex, Station Square, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacl 2556 P & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.110, 111 & 112/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018 To 2019-2020) Lalchnd Gem & Jeweller Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Private Limited, 1, Lalchand Market Complex, Station Square, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaccl 9025 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri A.K.Sabat, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/04/2022

disallowed under section 43B or under section 36(1)(va); SLP dismissed. 7.13 On perusal of the above judgments in favour of the assessee and other quoted by the Ld DR in contrast. Having two opposite opinions on the same issue, it is a moot question that which view should be appreciated. To reach on a judgment on the controversy

PURUSOTTAMA ESTATES AND RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,PURI vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.95 & 99/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2018-2019 & 2019-2020) Purusottama Estates & Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Resorts Private Limited, Sri Nahar, Grand Road, Puri-752001 Pan No. : Aabcp 8924 A & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.97 & 98/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018 & 2018-2019) Lalchnd Resort Private Limited, Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Plot No.6, Hotel New Marion, Janpath, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacl 7289 H & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.108 & 109/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018 & 2018-2019) Lalchnd Jewellers Private Limited Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore 4Th Floor, Lalchand Market Complex, Station Square, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacl 2556 P & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.110, 111 & 112/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018 To 2019-2020) Lalchnd Gem & Jeweller Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Private Limited, 1, Lalchand Market Complex, Station Square, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaccl 9025 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri A.K.Sabat, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/04/2022

disallowed under section 43B or under section 36(1)(va); SLP dismissed. 7.13 On perusal of the above judgments in favour of the assessee and other quoted by the Ld DR in contrast. Having two opposite opinions on the same issue, it is a moot question that which view should be appreciated. To reach on a judgment on the controversy

LALCHND JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.95 & 99/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2018-2019 & 2019-2020) Purusottama Estates & Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Resorts Private Limited, Sri Nahar, Grand Road, Puri-752001 Pan No. : Aabcp 8924 A & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.97 & 98/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018 & 2018-2019) Lalchnd Resort Private Limited, Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Plot No.6, Hotel New Marion, Janpath, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacl 7289 H & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.108 & 109/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018 & 2018-2019) Lalchnd Jewellers Private Limited Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore 4Th Floor, Lalchand Market Complex, Station Square, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacl 2556 P & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.110, 111 & 112/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018 To 2019-2020) Lalchnd Gem & Jeweller Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Private Limited, 1, Lalchand Market Complex, Station Square, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaccl 9025 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri A.K.Sabat, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/04/2022

disallowed under section 43B or under section 36(1)(va); SLP dismissed. 7.13 On perusal of the above judgments in favour of the assessee and other quoted by the Ld DR in contrast. Having two opposite opinions on the same issue, it is a moot question that which view should be appreciated. To reach on a judgment on the controversy

PASHUPATI ISPAT PVT. LTD.,CUTTACK vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed under section 43B or under section 36(1)(va); SLP dismissed. 7.13 On perusal of the above judgments in favour of the assessee and other quoted by the Ld DR in contrast. Having two opposite opinions on the same issue, it is a moot question that which view should be appreciated. To reach on a judgment on the controversy

LALCHND GEM AND JEWELLER PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.95 & 99/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2018-2019 & 2019-2020) Purusottama Estates & Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Resorts Private Limited, Sri Nahar, Grand Road, Puri-752001 Pan No. : Aabcp 8924 A & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.97 & 98/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018 & 2018-2019) Lalchnd Resort Private Limited, Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Plot No.6, Hotel New Marion, Janpath, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacl 7289 H & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.108 & 109/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018 & 2018-2019) Lalchnd Jewellers Private Limited Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore 4Th Floor, Lalchand Market Complex, Station Square, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacl 2556 P & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.110, 111 & 112/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018 To 2019-2020) Lalchnd Gem & Jeweller Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Private Limited, 1, Lalchand Market Complex, Station Square, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaccl 9025 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri A.K.Sabat, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/04/2022

disallowed under section 43B or under section 36(1)(va); SLP dismissed. 7.13 On perusal of the above judgments in favour of the assessee and other quoted by the Ld DR in contrast. Having two opposite opinions on the same issue, it is a moot question that which view should be appreciated. To reach on a judgment on the controversy

PURUSOTTAMA ESTATES AND RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,PURI vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.95 & 99/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2018-2019 & 2019-2020) Purusottama Estates & Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Resorts Private Limited, Sri Nahar, Grand Road, Puri-752001 Pan No. : Aabcp 8924 A & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.97 & 98/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018 & 2018-2019) Lalchnd Resort Private Limited, Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Plot No.6, Hotel New Marion, Janpath, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacl 7289 H & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.108 & 109/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018 & 2018-2019) Lalchnd Jewellers Private Limited Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore 4Th Floor, Lalchand Market Complex, Station Square, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacl 2556 P & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.110, 111 & 112/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018 To 2019-2020) Lalchnd Gem & Jeweller Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Private Limited, 1, Lalchand Market Complex, Station Square, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaccl 9025 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri A.K.Sabat, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/04/2022

disallowed under section 43B or under section 36(1)(va); SLP dismissed. 7.13 On perusal of the above judgments in favour of the assessee and other quoted by the Ld DR in contrast. Having two opposite opinions on the same issue, it is a moot question that which view should be appreciated. To reach on a judgment on the controversy

LALCHND JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.95 & 99/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2018-2019 & 2019-2020) Purusottama Estates & Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Resorts Private Limited, Sri Nahar, Grand Road, Puri-752001 Pan No. : Aabcp 8924 A & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.97 & 98/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018 & 2018-2019) Lalchnd Resort Private Limited, Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Plot No.6, Hotel New Marion, Janpath, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacl 7289 H & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.108 & 109/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018 & 2018-2019) Lalchnd Jewellers Private Limited Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore 4Th Floor, Lalchand Market Complex, Station Square, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacl 2556 P & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.110, 111 & 112/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018 To 2019-2020) Lalchnd Gem & Jeweller Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Private Limited, 1, Lalchand Market Complex, Station Square, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaccl 9025 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri A.K.Sabat, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/04/2022

disallowed under section 43B or under section 36(1)(va); SLP dismissed. 7.13 On perusal of the above judgments in favour of the assessee and other quoted by the Ld DR in contrast. Having two opposite opinions on the same issue, it is a moot question that which view should be appreciated. To reach on a judgment on the controversy

DINESH PRATAP SINGH,KEONJHAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.100/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2018-2019) Dinesh Pratap Singh, Vs Dcit, Circle-1(1), Cuttack At-Hudiashi, Near Nac Gate, Joda, Keonjhar Pan No. : Baaps 4341 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattanaik, Ar : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Made Against The Order Dated 26.08.2021, Passed By The Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. The Sole Issue Involved In The Present Appeal Is With Regard To Confirming The Addition Of Rs.7,60,679/- Towards Late Payment Of Employees Contribution To Provident Fund & Esi. 3. In The Instant Appeal, On Perusal Of The Assessment Record, We Found That The Assessee Has Filed His Return Of Income Electronically On 02.10.2018 Declaring Total Income At Rs.62,47,268/-. The Ao Made Addition On Account Of Delay In Depositing Employees Contribution To Pf & Esi, Which Has Also Been Confirmed By The Cit(A). In This Regard, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee In His Written Submissions, Placed Before Us, At Page 4

disallowed under section 43B or under section 36(1)(va); SLP dismissed. 7.13 On perusal of the above judgments in favour of the assessee and other quoted by the Ld DR in contrast. Having two opposite opinions on the same issue, it is a moot question that which view should be appreciated. To reach on a judgment on the controversy

CHANDAN SECURITY SERVICE,CUTTACK vs. DCIT(CPC), CPC

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowed under section 43B or under section 36(1)(va); SLP dismissed. 7.13 On perusal of the above judgments in favour of the assessee and other quoted by the Ld DR in contrast. Having two opposite opinions on the same issue, it is a moot question that which view should be appreciated. To reach on a judgment on the controversy

CHANDAN SECURITY SERVICE,CUTTACK vs. DCIT, CPC

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowed under section 43B or under section 36(1)(va); SLP dismissed. 7.13 On perusal of the above judgments in favour of the assessee and other quoted by the Ld DR in contrast. Having two opposite opinions on the same issue, it is a moot question that which view should be appreciated. To reach on a judgment on the controversy

RUKMANI INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.358/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Rukmani Infra Projects Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Plot No.251, District Centre, C.S.Pur, Bhubaneswar-16 Pan No. : Aaecr 1585 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit-Dr राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Has Been Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 16.06.2017, For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Extracted From The Available Records Are That, The Assessee, A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956, Engaged In The Business Of Erection, Commissioning, Technical & Maintenance Service To Different Power Plants. The Return Of Income For The Ay 2013-14 Was Filed By The Assessee On 01.10.2013 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,65,91,030/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected Under Cass. Notice U/S 143(2) & 143(1) Were Issued & Served On The Assessee. Assessment Proceedings Were Completed By The Ao & Concluded With An Addition Of Rs.3,58,95,574/- Under Four Different

disallowed under section 43B or under section 36(1)(va); SLP dismissed. 7.13 On perusal of the above judgments in favour of the assessee and other quoted by the Ld DR in contrast. Having two opposite opinions on the same issue, it is a moot question that which view should be appreciated. To reach on a judgment on the controversy

KOTHAKOTA RAMA RAO,RAYAGADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

149 of the Act, the words used are 'issue to the assessee. Thus, each word used in 27 IT(SS)A No.132/CTK/2018 ITA Nos.19&20/CTK/2019 each section has a different purpose and different meaning. 'Made' cannot be treated on the same footing as served. The fact that the word used is 'made' in section 153 shows that the assessment order

KOTHAKOTA RAMA RAO,RAYAGADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

149 of the Act, the words used are 'issue to the assessee. Thus, each word used in 27 IT(SS)A No.132/CTK/2018 ITA Nos.19&20/CTK/2019 each section has a different purpose and different meaning. 'Made' cannot be treated on the same footing as served. The fact that the word used is 'made' in section 153 shows that the assessment order

KOTHAKOTA RAMA RAO,RAYAGADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

149 of the Act, the words used are 'issue to the assessee. Thus, each word used in 27 IT(SS)A No.132/CTK/2018 ITA Nos.19&20/CTK/2019 each section has a different purpose and different meaning. 'Made' cannot be treated on the same footing as served. The fact that the word used is 'made' in section 153 shows that the assessment order

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.

disallowance of on account of has from house property as such is not reflected in Form No-16 of Rs 19,517.00 Being aggrieved by the order of assessment u/s 143(3) row's 147 of the lncome Tax Act, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of lncome Tax (A) Cuttack. The Commissioner of lncome Tax (A), (NFAC

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.

disallowance of on account of has from house property as such is not reflected in Form No-16 of Rs 19,517.00 Being aggrieved by the order of assessment u/s 143(3) row's 147 of the lncome Tax Act, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of lncome Tax (A) Cuttack. The Commissioner of lncome Tax (A), (NFAC

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.

disallowance of on account of has from house property as such is not reflected in Form No-16 of Rs 19,517.00 Being aggrieved by the order of assessment u/s 143(3) row's 147 of the lncome Tax Act, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of lncome Tax (A) Cuttack. The Commissioner of lncome Tax (A), (NFAC