KANAK BHANJ DEO,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-5(3), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.21/Ctk/2024 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Kanak Bhanj Deo, Vs Ito, Ward-5(3), Bhubaneswar Plot No.2093/3341, Lane-5, Jaydev Vihar, Bhubaneswar, Odisha-751013 Pan No. :Angpb 4721 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri N.R.Biswal, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/07/2024 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 16.11.2023, In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1058002817(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Has Entered Into Joint Development Agreement (Jda) With The Builder On 13.01.2012 & Further Executed A Distribution Agreement On 05.11.2014 According To Which The Land Of The Assessee Was Given To The Developer For Construction Of Multistoried Building & As Per Distribution Agreement, In Consideration The Assessee Is Entitled For 26% Area In The Constructed Building. During The Impugned Year The Assessee Has Got Four Flats Having Total Area Of 4220.23 Sq.Ft. (Including 92.85 Sq.Ft. Additional Area) As The Sale Consideration Being 26% Of The Newly Constructed Building. Out Of The Said

long term capital gain declared by the assessee by disallowing the deduction claimed u/s.54F of the Act, therefore, the said issue is very well within the ambit of the reason for limited scrutiny in the case of the assessee. Therefore, this ground of the assessee that the addition has been made beyond the issue for which the case was selected

PARADIP PORT AUTHORITY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

property held under trust wholly for charitable purposes of 10 ITA Nos.208-210/CTK/2024 religious purposes shall not be included in the total income to the extent to which it is applied for such purposes in India and where it is accumulated for such application to the extent whichever is higher. The exemption of accumulated income to the extent

PARADIP PORT AUTHORITY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

property held under trust wholly for charitable purposes of 10 ITA Nos.208-210/CTK/2024 religious purposes shall not be included in the total income to the extent to which it is applied for such purposes in India and where it is accumulated for such application to the extent whichever is higher. The exemption of accumulated income to the extent

PARADIP PORT AUTHORITY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

property held under trust wholly for charitable purposes of 10 ITA Nos.208-210/CTK/2024 religious purposes shall not be included in the total income to the extent to which it is applied for such purposes in India and where it is accumulated for such application to the extent whichever is higher. The exemption of accumulated income to the extent

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

long term capital gains amounting to Rs.60,18,026/- as exempt u/s.54F of the Act. ITA No. 483/CT K/ 2014 Asse ssment Year :20 08- 09 According to the Assessing Officer, out of four flats delivered to the assessee by the builder, the Flat No.103 was rented out, Flat No.s101 & 104 were occupied by the assessee and Flat No.304

HEMANT KUMAR AGARWAL,CUTTACK vs. ADDL.CIT NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

house property and income from dealing in shares. It was the submission that the assessee had applied for shares in M/s AAR Infrastructure Limited and 50000 shares were allotted to the assessee at the cost of Rs.5 lakhs on 25.01.2011. Ld. AR drew our attention to page 14 of the paper book, which was the allotment letter and page

HEMANT KUMAR AGARWAL,CUTTACK vs. ADDL.CIT , NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

house property and income from dealing in shares. It was the submission that the assessee had applied for shares in M/s AAR Infrastructure Limited and 50000 shares were allotted to the assessee at the cost of Rs.5 lakhs on 25.01.2011. Ld. AR drew our attention to page 14 of the paper book, which was the allotment letter and page

PRAFULLA KUMAR KHATEI,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2012-13

house property at the time of sale of the original asset giving rise to long term capital gain and, therefore

BIKASH AGARWALLA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2014-2015

Long term capital gain” in the return of income on sale of a house property on 30.7.2013. The Assessing Officer

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

long term capital gain. Ld CIT(A) has also considered the fact that there are sale of shares of Golden Anchor Pvt Ltd., and Rams Assorted Cold Storage ltd., It was his submission that in the remand proceedings, the AO had P a g e 10 | 13 ITA No. 11 /CTK/2022 C.O.No.02/CTK/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 mentioned that

SATYARANJAN CHAND,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialassessment Year : 2015-16 Satyaranjan Satyaranjan Chand, Chand, Plot Vs. Dy. Dy. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of 3Rd No.Ga-722, 722, 3 Floor, Income Income Tax, Tax, Circle Circle-2(1), Kalinga Nagar, K Kalinga Nagar, K-3-B, Po: Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Ghatikia, Bhubaneswar. Ghatikia, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aajpc 7891 A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agrawal Walla, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/11 11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11 /11/2023 O R D E R

property on 2.2.2009 out of which impugned capital gain accrued to the assessee. In these facts and circumstances, the CIT(A) was right in concluding that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee filed the relevant details of capital gain and its utilization along with copies of the bank account statement and from these details, it is amply clear

KELLA TRADING COMPANY (HUF),KORAPUT vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Kella Kella Trading Trading Company Company Vs. Pr. Cit, Sambalpur Pr. Cit, Sambalpur (Huf), Kella Street, Jeypore, (Huf), Kella Street, Jeypore, Koraput-764001 764001 Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aamhk 1172 R (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C.Sethi, Ar P.C.Sethi, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit , Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/11 11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11 11/2022 O R D E R

long term capital gains claiming the benefit of deduction u/s.54F of the Act in respect of development agreement entered into by the assessee with builder M/s. Odyssa Homes Commercial Pvt Ltd. It was the submission that the return filed by the assessee came to be processed on ‘limited scrutiny’ and assessment was completed u/s.143

ITO, BHUBANESWAR vs. ABHAYA PRASAD PANDA, BHUBANESWAR

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2007-2008

house, but however, considering part of the same and rejecting the others without a speaking order in calculating the cost of acquisition are erroneous and needs to be revised and hence liable to be set aside. 10. For that the assessee craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time

ABHAYA PRASAD PANDA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, BHUBANESWAR

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2007-2008

house, but however, considering part of the same and rejecting the others without a speaking order in calculating the cost of acquisition are erroneous and needs to be revised and hence liable to be set aside. 10. For that the assessee craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time

AKSHYA KUMAR CHOUDHURY,KHORDA vs. ITO,WARD-3(1), BHUBANESWAR

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अपील संसंसंसं/Ita

House No.2612, Forest Park Bhubaneswar, Khurda PAN No. : ABGPC 9511 R (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. िनधा"रती िनधा"रती क" िनधा"रती िनधा"रती क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee by ओर : Shri Satyajit Pattnaik, Advocate राज"व क" राज"व क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue by राज"व राज

SANGRAM KESHARI SAMANTARAY,BHUBANESWAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, BHUBANESWAR

Housing Projects ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 329; vi) Aditi Aggarwal Vs. Pr.CIT, ITA No.21/Chd/2021, order dated 20.09.2021; vii) Sh. Jaswinder Singh Vs. CIT-II, ITA No.690/Chd/2010, order dated 09.03.2012; viii) Shri Sunil Chhagan Bhaybhang Vs. Pr.CIT, ITA No.932/PUN/2016, order dated 07.03.2019; and ix) Raghunath Exporters Vs. Pr.CIT, ITA No.92/Kol/2017, order dated 10.11.2017. 10. It was also submitted

HI-TECH ESTATES & PROMOTERS PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

property is transferred to the buyer through conveyance of registered sale deeds. 35. The assessee also explained that during the assessment proceedings that the gross revenue as per service tax was Rs.44,51,17,424/- for the impugned assessment year which is the amount received by the assessee in instalments during the year. However, sales as per statement of profit

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

termed as a “State” or not we submit that; - That, on 23rd March 1974, “The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974” had been notified for the purpose of prevention and control of water pollution and maintaining or restoring of wholesomeness of water. With a view to carry out the purpose aforesaid, the Central Govt. constituted “Central Board

ITO, BHUBANESWAR vs. ORISSA COMPUTER APPLICATION CENTRE, BHUBANESWAR

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

long way towards indicating that the corporation is an instrumentality or agency of Government." (2) "Where the financial assistance of the state is so much as to meet almost entire expenditure of the corporation, it would afford some indication of the corporation being impregnated with governmental character." (3) "It may also be a relevant factor.... Whether the corporation enjoys monopoly