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

24. It is also a relevant factor that on a single project, deduction u/s 80IA has been claimed twice, firstly by both the JV’s claiming themselves as the developer and secondly by one of the constituents who executed part work by claiming itself as the developer. To our understanding deduction u/s 80IA is available to one entity only

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

24. It is also a relevant factor that on a single project, deduction u/s 80IA has been claimed twice, firstly by both the JV’s claiming themselves as the developer and secondly by one of the constituents who executed part work by claiming itself as the developer. To our understanding deduction u/s 80IA is available to one entity only

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

24. It is also a relevant factor that on a single project, deduction u/s 80IA has been claimed twice, firstly by both the JV’s claiming themselves as the developer and secondly by one of the constituents who executed part work by claiming itself as the developer. To our understanding deduction u/s 80IA is available to one entity only

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

24. It is also a relevant factor that on a single project, deduction u/s 80IA has been claimed twice, firstly by both the JV’s claiming themselves as the developer and secondly by one of the constituents who executed part work by claiming itself as the developer. To our understanding deduction u/s 80IA is available to one entity only

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

24. It is also a relevant factor that on a single project, deduction u/s 80IA has been claimed twice, firstly by both the JV’s claiming themselves as the developer and secondly by one of the constituents who executed part work by claiming itself as the developer. To our understanding deduction u/s 80IA is available to one entity only

NILADREE BUILD-TECH PRIVATE LIMITED,PURI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

section 68 of the Act in respect of the unsecured loans received from the director of the assessee company. It was submissions that in the case of one of the directors the assessee had received the unsecured loan of Rs.2.5 crores and Rs.15 lakhs relating to the opening balance. It was submission that the other director had given an unsecured

M/S. GORAKHNATH CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,ROURKELA vs. DCIT, ROURKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.235 & 236/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014 14 & 2014-15 Gorakhnath Gorakhnath Construction Construction Vs. Dcit, Circle, Rourkela Dcit, Circle, Rourkela Pvt.Ltd., E-42, 42, Koel Koel Nagar, Nagar, Rourkela Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aabcg 4382 R (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty P.R.Mohanty, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/0 04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/0 /04/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

24)(x) and on subsequent payment of the same, it would be a business expenditure, which can be claimed u/s.37(1) of the Act. We are not expressing any opinion in regard to his arguments as it has not been examined by the lower authorities. Liberty is also granted to the assessee to raise all arguments as are found necessary

M/S. GORAKHNATH CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,ROURKELA vs. ACIT, ROURKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.235 & 236/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014 14 & 2014-15 Gorakhnath Gorakhnath Construction Construction Vs. Dcit, Circle, Rourkela Dcit, Circle, Rourkela Pvt.Ltd., E-42, 42, Koel Koel Nagar, Nagar, Rourkela Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aabcg 4382 R (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty P.R.Mohanty, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/0 04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/0 /04/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

24)(x) and on subsequent payment of the same, it would be a business expenditure, which can be claimed u/s.37(1) of the Act. We are not expressing any opinion in regard to his arguments as it has not been examined by the lower authorities. Liberty is also granted to the assessee to raise all arguments as are found necessary

BIKASH PATRA,ROURKELA vs. ITO WARD-4,, ROURKELA

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

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2018-19 Bikash Patra, B Bikash Patra, B-4 & 5, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Sector-20, 20, Rourkela, Rourkela, Rourkela Sundargarh Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aiypp 1174 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agarwalla, Ca & S.K.Hota, Ar S.K.Agarwalla, Ca & S.K.Hota, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/0 02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/0 /02/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), , Nfac, Nfac, Delhi Delhi Dated 30.7.2021 In Appeal No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021-22/1034539422(1) For The Assessment Year The Assessment Year 2018- 19. 2. Shri S.K.Agarwalla, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri S.K.Agarwalla, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri S.K.Agarwalla, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue. S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

24)(x) and on subsequent payment of the same, it would be a business expenditure, which can be claimed u/s.37(1) of the Act. We are not expressing any opinion in regard to his arguments P a g e 3 | 5 Assessment Year : 2018-19 as it has not been examined by the lower authorities. Liberty is also granted

ODISHA STATE MEDICAL CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE -1(2), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2017-18 Odisha Odisha State State Medical Medical Vs. Dcit/Acit, Circle Dcit/Acit, Circle-1(2), Corporation Ltd., Infront Of Corporation Ltd., Infront Of Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Ram Mandir, Bhubaneswar. Ram Mandir, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aabco 9370 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Natabar Panda Natabar Panda, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/0 04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/0 /04/2024 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 9.12.2022 In Appeal No. In Appeal No. Cit(A), Bhubaneswar- -1/10575/2018-19 For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri Natabar Panda, Natabar Panda, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri D Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr. Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

disallowed contribution of the employees to PF and ESI under other relevant provisions in the interest of justice. This direction is being given because ld AR has submitted that as the amount is not allowable under section 36(1)(va) of the Act and same is also not covered under section 43B of the Act, the amount of delayed contribution

JAGANNATH CORPORATION PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2020-2021 2021 Jagannath Jagannath Corporation Corporation Vs. Cit (A), Nfac, Delhi Cit (A), Nfac, Delhi Projects Projects Pvt Pvt Ltd., Ltd., Plot Plot No.397, No.397, Sarangi Sarangi Bhawan Bhawan Garage Chhak, Lewis Road, Garage Chhak, Lewis Road, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaccj 3043 M (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tarun Kumar Agarwal Agarwalla, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/0 02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/0 /02/2023

disallowed contribution of the employees to PF and ESI under other relevant provisions in the interest of justice. This direction is being given because ld AR has submitted that as the amount is not allowable under section 36(1)(va) of the Act and same is also not covered under section 43B of the Act, the amount of delayed contribution

SRI NIRMAL CHANDRA PADHIARY,BALASORE vs. ACIT, BALASORE CIRCLE, BALASORE

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

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.157/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Sri Nirmal Chandra Padhiary, Vs Acit, Balasore Circle, Balasore Bampada, Chhanpur, Birla Tyre Road, Balasore-756056 Pan No. :Acupp 0872 B (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Mr. Somanath Sahoo, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 25.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1049108098(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Time Barred By 35 Days. In This Regard, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Has Filed An Application Along With Affidavit Of The Assessee For Condonation Of The Delay, To Which The Ld. Sr. Dr Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection To Condone The Delay. On Perusal Of The Application & The Affidavit Of The Assessee, We Found That The Delay Occurred Due To Bonafide Reasons. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay Of 35 Days In Filing The Appeal & Appeal Is Disposed Off Finally. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That Two Additions Are Challenged In This Appeal, One Is Against The Disallowance Of Pf & Esi Paid Belatedly

disallowed contribution of the employees to PF and ESI under other relevant provisions in the interest of justice. This direction is being given because ld AR has submitted that as the amount is not allowable under section 36(1)(va) of the Act and same is also not covered under section 43B of the Act, the amount of delayed contribution

KALINGA MINING CORPORATION,CUTTACK vs. A.C.I.T, CIRCLE-2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

x 47.52%]. Hence, it was believed that the income chargeable to tax amounting to Rs.60,45,017/- has escaped assessment for the year under consideration". 3. That the basic condition precedent for invoking jurisdiction/power u/s.147/148 of the IT Act, 1961 is missing in present case, in as much as, to initiate the proceeding under the said provision, the assessing officer

KALINGA MINING CORPORATION,CUTTACK vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

x 47.52%]. Hence, it was believed that the income chargeable to tax amounting to Rs.60,45,017/- has escaped assessment for the year under consideration". 3. That the basic condition precedent for invoking jurisdiction/power u/s.147/148 of the IT Act, 1961 is missing in present case, in as much as, to initiate the proceeding under the said provision, the assessing officer

JYOTIN KUMAR SAHOO,KHORDA vs. DCIT CIECLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.7,8 & 306/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021 21 & 2021-22 Jyotin Kumar Sahoo, Plot Jyotin Kumar Sahoo, Plot Vs. Dcit/Acit, Circle Dcit/Acit, Circle-2(1), No.112/256A, Lane No.112/256A, Lane-3, Cave Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Road, Road, Khandagiri, Khandagiri, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Ahjps 8082 N (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.R.Pattnaik, Ca B.R.Pattnaik, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/0 04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/0 /04/2024 O R D E R Per Bench All These Three All These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Are Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 23.11 Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 23.11.2022 In Appeal No.Nfac/2018 In Appeal No.Nfac/2018- 19/10024405 For The Assessment Year 2019-20, In Appeal No.Nfac/2019 20, In Appeal No.Nfac/2019- 20/10074302 For The Assessment Year 2020 20/10074302 For The Assessment Year 2020 20/10074302 For The Assessment Year 2020-21 & In Appeal No.Nfac/2020 No.Nfac/2020-21/10167847 For The Assessment Year 2021 21/10167847 For The Assessment Year 2021-22, Respectively.

disallowed contribution of the employees to PF and ESI under other relevant provisions in the interest of justice. This direction is being given because ld AR has submitted that as the amount is not allowable under section 36(1)(va) of the Act and same is also not covered under section 43B of the Act, the amount of delayed contribution

JYOTIN KUMAR SAHOO,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.7,8 & 306/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021 21 & 2021-22 Jyotin Kumar Sahoo, Plot Jyotin Kumar Sahoo, Plot Vs. Dcit/Acit, Circle Dcit/Acit, Circle-2(1), No.112/256A, Lane No.112/256A, Lane-3, Cave Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Road, Road, Khandagiri, Khandagiri, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Ahjps 8082 N (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.R.Pattnaik, Ca B.R.Pattnaik, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/0 04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/0 /04/2024 O R D E R Per Bench All These Three All These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Are Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 23.11 Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 23.11.2022 In Appeal No.Nfac/2018 In Appeal No.Nfac/2018- 19/10024405 For The Assessment Year 2019-20, In Appeal No.Nfac/2019 20, In Appeal No.Nfac/2019- 20/10074302 For The Assessment Year 2020 20/10074302 For The Assessment Year 2020 20/10074302 For The Assessment Year 2020-21 & In Appeal No.Nfac/2020 No.Nfac/2020-21/10167847 For The Assessment Year 2021 21/10167847 For The Assessment Year 2021-22, Respectively.

disallowed contribution of the employees to PF and ESI under other relevant provisions in the interest of justice. This direction is being given because ld AR has submitted that as the amount is not allowable under section 36(1)(va) of the Act and same is also not covered under section 43B of the Act, the amount of delayed contribution

JYOTIN KUMAR SAHOO,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.7,8 & 306/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021 21 & 2021-22 Jyotin Kumar Sahoo, Plot Jyotin Kumar Sahoo, Plot Vs. Dcit/Acit, Circle Dcit/Acit, Circle-2(1), No.112/256A, Lane No.112/256A, Lane-3, Cave Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Road, Road, Khandagiri, Khandagiri, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Ahjps 8082 N (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.R.Pattnaik, Ca B.R.Pattnaik, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/0 04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/0 /04/2024 O R D E R Per Bench All These Three All These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Are Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 23.11 Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 23.11.2022 In Appeal No.Nfac/2018 In Appeal No.Nfac/2018- 19/10024405 For The Assessment Year 2019-20, In Appeal No.Nfac/2019 20, In Appeal No.Nfac/2019- 20/10074302 For The Assessment Year 2020 20/10074302 For The Assessment Year 2020 20/10074302 For The Assessment Year 2020-21 & In Appeal No.Nfac/2020 No.Nfac/2020-21/10167847 For The Assessment Year 2021 21/10167847 For The Assessment Year 2021-22, Respectively.

disallowed contribution of the employees to PF and ESI under other relevant provisions in the interest of justice. This direction is being given because ld AR has submitted that as the amount is not allowable under section 36(1)(va) of the Act and same is also not covered under section 43B of the Act, the amount of delayed contribution

B.B.KAR,ROURKELA vs. ITO WARD-1, ROURKELA

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2018-19 B.B.Kar, F-4, Civil Township, 4, Civil Township, Vs. Ito, Ward Ito, Ward-1, Rourkela Rourkela Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aaefb 9122 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena Sandeep Kumar Jena, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/0 04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/0 /04/2024 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 9.12.2022 In Appeal No. In Appeal No. Cit(A), Sambalpur/10032/2020 Sambalpur/10032/2020-21 For The Assessment Year 2018 2018-19. 2. Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena Sandeep Kumar Jena, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri D Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr. Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

disallowed contribution of the employees to PF and ESI under other relevant provisions in the interest of justice. This direction is being given because ld AR has submitted that as the amount is not allowable under section 36(1)(va) of the Act and same is also not covered under section 43B of the Act, the amount of delayed contribution