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 business income” declared by the assessee. Besides this, ld. Pr.CIT observed that assessee

PRAVANSHU SAMANTARAY,CUTTACK vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assesee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.369/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) Pravanshu Samantaray, Vs Ito, Ward-1(1), Cuttack C/O : Adikanda Samantaray, At: Rajabagicha,Po Telenga Bazar Dist : Cuttack-753009 Pan No. : Acxps 7565 D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Sr. Dr राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi, Dated 29/04/2025, For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assesee Owned One Residential House Representing A Flat In Bhubaneswar Where The Assesee Is Staying. The Assesee Is Also Deriving Rental Income From A Commercial Property Jointly Owned By The Assesee & His Brothers & Sisters. It Was The Submission That The Commercial Property Was Received By The Assesee On The Demise Of His Father. It Was The Submission That The Said Commercial Property Was A Joint Owned Property With The Brothers & Sisters Of The Assesee. It Was The Submission That The Assesee Also Owned

house property and had taken assumption that the commercial property is a residential property. It was the submission

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", however, the CIT (A) has erred in law failing to consider the standard deduction, available/allowable to the respondent

SMT. SANJUKTA SINGH,CUTTACK vs. ITO WARD-2(30, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialassessment Year : 2016-17 Smt. Smt. Sanjukta Sanjukta Singh, Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Income Tax Officer, Ward- Samanta Samanta Sahi, Sahi, B.K.Canal B.K.Canal 2(3), Cuttack 2(3), Cuttack Road, Cuttack Road, Cuttack-753001 Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aqgps 9627 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri S.N.Sahu/Somnath Sahu, Ars S.N.Sahu/Somnath Sahu, Ars Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 12/0 03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/0 /03/2024 O R D E R 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, A), Nfac, Delhi, Dated 12.6.2023 In Appeal No. In Appeal No.Cit(A), Cuttack/10125/018 Cuttack/10125/018-19 For The Assessment Year 2016- -17. 2. S/Shri S.N.Sahu/Somnath Sahu, Ars Appeared For The Assessee & S.N.Sahu/Somnath Sahu, Ars Appeared For The Assessee & S.N.Sahu/Somnath Sahu, Ars Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue. Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

house property income and interest income. the sale of garment materials, house property income and interest

PRAVASH NARAYAN MALLICK,CHHATIA vs. ITO, JAJPUR WARD, JAJPUR

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialassessment Year : 2014-15 Pravash Narayan Pravash Narayan Mallick, At: Vs. Ito, Jajpur Ward, Ito, Jajpur Ward, Gopapurchhak, Gopapurchhak, Chhatia, Chhatia, Jajpur Barchana, Dist: Jajpur Barchana, Dist: Jajpur Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Ajupm 4029 J (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, Adv Sandeep Kumar Jena, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 19 /0 04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/0 /04/2023 O R D E R

house property, ital & Colour Lab and also from rental income from house property, ital & Colour Lab and also

RADHANATH MOHANTY,BHUBANESWAR vs. PCIT, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

house property had not been examined by the AO; and vii) the nature of the business of the partnership

SHRI MAHESH KUMAR AGARWAL,SUNDARGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, assessee’s appeal in the case of Mahesh

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am It(Ss)A No.117-119/Ctk/2018 ( Assessment Years :2011-2012 To 2013-2014) Mahesh Kumar Agarwal, Vs Dcit, Central Circle-2, Plot No.O-10, Civil Township, Bhubaneswar Rourkela, Sundargarh-769004 Pan No. : Abdpa 8307 Q & It(Ss)A No.146&147/Ctk/2018 (Assessment Years :2011-2012 & 2012-2013) Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs Mahesh Kumar Agarwal, Bhubaneswar Plot No.O-10, Civil Township, Rourkela, Sundargarh-769004 Pan No. : Abdpa 8307 Q & It(Ss)A No.44/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Smt. Sanju Agarwal, Vs Dcit, Central Circle-2, Plot No.O-10, Civil Township, Bhubaneswar Rourkela, Sundargarh-769004 Pan No. : Aavpa 4328 C (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.M.Surana, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/01/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: In The Above Captioned Seven Appeals, Five Appeals Have Been Filed By Two Different Assessees & Two Appeals Have 2 It(Ss)A Nos.44/Ctk/2018 It(Ss)A Nos.117-119/Ctk/2018 It(Ss)A Nos.146&147/Ctk/2018 & Ita No.382/Ctk/2018 Been Filed By The Department Which Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, All Dated 31.01.2018 For The Assessment Years 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014 & 2014-2015, Respectively.

house property was found and since reference is not valid, limitation cannot be extended. However, assessee failed to get relief

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property. Please furnish the details. Details of movable & immovable properties in the following format:- Sl.No. Details

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

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

property as a guest house. It was the submission that as the assessee has been using the property

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

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

property as a guest house. It was the submission that as the assessee has been using the property

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 and later sells it at profit, the gain made by the company will be assessable under

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

house property out of the sale consideration received from the sale of capital assets. 3. Brief facts of the case

DURGA DUTTA SUBUDHI,PURI vs. ITO, WARD PURI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.552/Ctk/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Durga Dutta Subudhi Vs Ito, Ward Puri. Badasankha, Grand Road, Puri Pan No. :Acxps 7943 P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Nishanth Rao, B Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/07/2025

house property as the TDS return showed TDS having deducted u/s.194-I of the Act. It was the submission

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

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

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

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

ASHOK AGARWAL,ROURKELA vs. DCIT, ROURKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2012-13 Ashok Ashok Agarwal, Agarwal, Power Power Vs. Dcit, Dcit, Rourkela Rourkela Circle, Circle, House Road, Rourkela House Road, Rourkela Rourkela Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaxpa 8813 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C.Sethi, Ar P.C.Sethi, Ar Revenue By : Shri A.C.Rout, Sr. : Shri A.C.Rout, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30 /9 9/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/9 9/2022 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), Sambalpur , Sambalpur Dated 4.11.2019 In Appeal No. 0030/2015 0030/2015-16 For The Assessment Year Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Shri P.C.Sethi, Ld Shri P.C.Sethi, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri A.C.Rout, Sr Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri A.C.Rout, Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue. Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

house property and income from other sources. It was the submission that the assessee is not having any business

MANORANJAN DASH,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO WARD 3(1), BHUBANESWAR

housing loan of Rs.3000000/-\nused for payment of creditors towards construction of the property observing that\nthe housing