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

1. That, the Ld. Authorities below are wrong in interpreting the provisions of section 54F of the Act and wrong in holding the meaning assigning to word "a house" as "one house" and therefore the disallowance

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

disallowance 1 Unexplained 62,05,000/- 1. Learned CIT (A) has rejected the investment appellant's claim basing on the statement U/s.69ofthel.T of Sri. Sarbeswar Sahu (M.D) of the Act 1961. Bhulaxmi Realcon Private Limited (Purchaser of land) who has categorically stated before the AO that he has not given any cash to the appellant. 2. Learned

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

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

54F [, 54G and 54HJJJJJ, be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Capital gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. ----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- Mode of computation. 48. The income chargeable under the head "Capital gains" shall be computed, by deducting from the full value of the consideration received or accruing

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.

1 For that, the learned CIT(A) has committed gross error of law as well as of fact, in dismissing the appeal of the appellant and in confirming the addition made by the learned A.O., without providing sufficient effective opportunity of being heard to the Appellant, as such, the appeal order, being passed on gross violation of principles of natural