STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ODISHA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARAD 5(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed and stay petition stands dismissed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwals.P.No.11/Ctk/2024 Assessment Year :2017-18 State Pollution Control Board State Pollution Control Board, Vs. Ito, Ward 5(2), Plot No.A-118, Paribesh Bhawan, 118, Paribesh Bhawan, Bhubaneswar Nilakantha Nagar, Agar, Nayapali, Nayapali, Unit-Vii, Bhubaneswar Neswar Pan/Gir No.Aaals 2490 J Aaals 2490 J (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agrawalla, Ca Walla, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/10/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/10/20 024 O R D E R Per Bench

houses and other business establishments for installing of pollution control equipment for prevention of Air & Water Pollution. The functions of the assessee Board are of public importance and closely related to governmental functions. On the facts and circumstances as stated above, the assessee is a “State” as defined in Article12 of the Constitution of India and it is prayed before

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

carried out by the third party i.e. other than the constituents therefore, the JVs are entitled for deduction u/s.80IA of the Act and accordingly those JVs were succeeded in appellate forums and allowed the deduction u/s.80IA of the Act. 54 IT(SS)A No.77 & ITA Nos.320,296,88, 141,89,142,13/CTK/2023 &CO No.02/CTK/2023 iii) the deduction u/s.80IA

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

carried out by the third party i.e. other than the constituents therefore, the JVs are entitled for deduction u/s.80IA of the Act and accordingly those JVs were succeeded in appellate forums and allowed the deduction u/s.80IA of the Act. 54 IT(SS)A No.77 & ITA Nos.320,296,88, 141,89,142,13/CTK/2023 &CO No.02/CTK/2023 iii) the deduction u/s.80IA

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

carried out by the third party i.e. other than the constituents therefore, the JVs are entitled for deduction u/s.80IA of the Act and accordingly those JVs were succeeded in appellate forums and allowed the deduction u/s.80IA of the Act. 54 IT(SS)A No.77 & ITA Nos.320,296,88, 141,89,142,13/CTK/2023 &CO No.02/CTK/2023 iii) the deduction u/s.80IA

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

carried out by the third party i.e. other than the constituents therefore, the JVs are entitled for deduction u/s.80IA of the Act and accordingly those JVs were succeeded in appellate forums and allowed the deduction u/s.80IA of the Act. 54 IT(SS)A No.77 & ITA Nos.320,296,88, 141,89,142,13/CTK/2023 &CO No.02/CTK/2023 iii) the deduction u/s.80IA

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

carried out by the third party i.e. other than the constituents therefore, the JVs are entitled for deduction u/s.80IA of the Act and accordingly those JVs were succeeded in appellate forums and allowed the deduction u/s.80IA of the Act. 54 IT(SS)A No.77 & ITA Nos.320,296,88, 141,89,142,13/CTK/2023 &CO No.02/CTK/2023 iii) the deduction u/s.80IA

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

carried out by the third party i.e. other than the constituents therefore, the JVs are entitled for deduction u/s.80IA of the Act and accordingly those JVs were succeeded in appellate forums and allowed the deduction u/s.80IA of the Act. 54 IT(SS)A No.77 & ITA Nos.320,296,88, 141,89,142,13/CTK/2023 &CO No.02/CTK/2023 iii) the deduction u/s.80IA

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

carried out by the third party i.e. other than the constituents therefore, the JVs are entitled for deduction u/s.80IA of the Act and accordingly those JVs were succeeded in appellate forums and allowed the deduction u/s.80IA of the Act. 54 IT(SS)A No.77 & ITA Nos.320,296,88, 141,89,142,13/CTK/2023 &CO No.02/CTK/2023 iii) the deduction u/s.80IA

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. HOTEL SUKHAMAYA PVT. LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

house property, business and profession and other sources and balance sheet was filed along with supportive financial statement. The Id AR's contention that the assessee was holding the cash for the business operations at Jaipur and there is no malafide intension and the said transaction was disclosed in the income tax return. Further the Id. AR emphasized that

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. HOTEL SUKHAMAYA PVT. LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

house property, business and profession and other sources and balance sheet was filed along with supportive financial statement. The Id AR's contention that the assessee was holding the cash for the business operations at Jaipur and there is no malafide intension and the said transaction was disclosed in the income tax return. Further the Id. AR emphasized that

BHUVANA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.105/Ctk/2024 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Bhuvana Projects Private Ltd. Vs Dcit, Corporate Circle, Flat No.908, Bhuvana Pride, Bhubaneswar Ranasinghpur, Odisha Pan No. :Aaecb 3452 A (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29/08/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.01.2024 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1060081750(1) For The Assessment Year 2015-2016, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. That The Impugned Appellate Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax ( Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Income Tax Department, Govt. Of India Is Bad In Law & Without Application Of Mind. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer Assessing The Taxable Income Of The Assessee Based On Percentage Completion Method Without Considering The Consistent Method Of Actual Performance Adopted By The Assessee Since Its Inception Declaring The Income For The Year. The Application Of As 7 To Arrive At The Income Is Notional & Hypothetical In Nature Which Cannot Override The Books Of Accounts Maintained By The Assessee & Therefore, Assessing A High Pitch Income Against The Returned Loss Of The Assessee Is Not Tenable In The Eyes Of Legal Standing & Therefore, The Same Should Be Quashed & The Income

carried out its construction activity of development of residential housing project which was started construction in the year 2012-2013. In preceding assessment years in the return of income filed by the assessee declared cost of construction as work-in- progress and losses were claimed towards other expenses. In the year under appeal, the assessee has brought forward the work