KANDOI AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD.,CUTTACK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

House Property Rental income Rs.24,69,840/- Less: 30% Deducttion u/s.24(1) Rs.7,40,952/- 17,28,888/- Income from Business : Net Proift as per P & L A/c. Rs.3,96,329/- Less : Income to be considered Separately Rental Income Rs.24,69,840/- Interest received Rs.9,01,211/- Rs.33,71,051/- (-) Rs.29,74,722/- Add: Depreciation on Building given on rent

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

section 24 of the Act 29. In reply, ld CIT DR submitted that if the standard deduction has not been given, then it has to be considered u/s.154 of the Act. 30. We have considered the rival submissions. Admittedly, the assessee has claimed that deduction u/s.24 in respect of income assessed under the head “ income from house property

GOPI KRISHNA PANDA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2009-2010

17 /01/ 2017 Date of Pronouncement : 17/01/ 2017 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)- Berhampur, dated 27.10.2014, for the assessment year 2009-2010. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee is barred by 312 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition dated 20.11.2015 supported by affidavit

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 during A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012- 13. 15. We further note that as per the mandatory provisions of section 142A, the AO can make reference to valuation officer only if he is required to estimate the cost of construction. 17

JAY KISHORE CHOUBEY,RAIRANGPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, ASANSOL

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Girish Agrawalassessment Year : 2010-2011 2011 Jay Jay Kishore Kishore Choubey, Choubey, Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-1, Asansol. Rairangpur Bazar, Rairangpur, Rairangpur Bazar, Rairangpur, Mayurbhanj. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Acmpc 1759 N (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty P.R.Mohanty, Adv Revenue By : Shri Charan Das, Sr. Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/11 11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/11 /11/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

House Property under section 24(a) Rs. 1,48,031 3. Depreciation under section 32 Rs.1,89,824 The condition precedent to the exercise of the jurisdiction under section 147 is the formation of a reason to believe by the Assessing P a g e 3 | 15 Assessment Year : 2010-2011 Officer. Upon the formation of the reason to believe

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

Property Act during the financial year 2007-08 relevant to assessment year 2008-09. The assessee declared full value of consideration of capital asset ITA No. 483/CT K/ 2014 Asse ssment Year :20 08- 09 of Rs.70,89,600/- and deducted therefrom indexed cost of acquisition of capital asset of Rs.2,73,003/-, Rs.6,78,571/- towards indexed cost

BISWA RANJAN PATTNAIL,ANGUL vs. ITO, DHENKANAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2006-07

17 /05/ 2017 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, JM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, dated 11.1.2012, for the assessment year 2006-07. 2. The only substantive ground raised by the assessee in this appeal is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action

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

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

UTKAL GRAMYA/ GRAMEEN BANK,SAMBALPUR vs. ITO (TDS), SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.190 To 192/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011 To 2012-2013) Utkal Gramya/Grameen Bank, Vs. Ito(Tds), Sambalpur Dhanupalli, Dist-Sambalpur-768005 Tan No. : Bbnb 00759 D (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri J.K.Lenka, Dr

17 cases and thus, there is no default committed by the assessee. Accordingly, disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) does not arise. Non filing or delayed filing of such forms can not result in disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia). The grounds raised by assessee are allowed. AO is directed to modify the order accordingly.” 11. Respectfully following the above decisions

UTKAL GRAMYA/ GRAMEEN BANK,SAMBALPUR vs. ITO (TDS), SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.190 To 192/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011 To 2012-2013) Utkal Gramya/Grameen Bank, Vs. Ito(Tds), Sambalpur Dhanupalli, Dist-Sambalpur-768005 Tan No. : Bbnb 00759 D (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri J.K.Lenka, Dr

17 cases and thus, there is no default committed by the assessee. Accordingly, disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) does not arise. Non filing or delayed filing of such forms can not result in disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia). The grounds raised by assessee are allowed. AO is directed to modify the order accordingly.” 11. Respectfully following the above decisions

UTKAL GRAMYA/ GRAMEEN BANK,SAMBALPUR vs. ITO (TDS), SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.190 To 192/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011 To 2012-2013) Utkal Gramya/Grameen Bank, Vs. Ito(Tds), Sambalpur Dhanupalli, Dist-Sambalpur-768005 Tan No. : Bbnb 00759 D (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri J.K.Lenka, Dr

17 cases and thus, there is no default committed by the assessee. Accordingly, disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) does not arise. Non filing or delayed filing of such forms can not result in disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia). The grounds raised by assessee are allowed. AO is directed to modify the order accordingly.” 11. Respectfully following the above decisions

YUVODAYA CHARITABLE TRUST,BOLANGIR vs. ACIT(EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.S Saini & Shri Aby T. Varkeyassessment Year :2016-17

houses for public utility. ii) To start and manage centers for training youths in self- employment and job oriented courses. iii) To canvass and to have programmes for afforestation and ecological balance. iv) To have programmes for all round development of villages and rural community.." 4. Thus, it can be seen that the aims and objects of the society mentioned

SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR AGARWALA,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.189 & 190/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Santosh Kumar Santosh Kumar Agarwala, Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-2(1), Sector-6, Cda, Cuttack 6, Cda, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaspa 3698Q (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth Mohit Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr , Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/07 7/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/0 /07/2023 O R D E R

17 for the assessment year for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. Shri Mohit Shri Mohit Sheth, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Sheth, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue. S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue. 3. It was submitted by ld AR that two additions

SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR AGARWALA,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.189 & 190/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Santosh Kumar Santosh Kumar Agarwala, Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-2(1), Sector-6, Cda, Cuttack 6, Cda, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaspa 3698Q (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth Mohit Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr , Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/07 7/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/0 /07/2023 O R D E R

17 for the assessment year for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. Shri Mohit Shri Mohit Sheth, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Sheth, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue. S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue. 3. It was submitted by ld AR that two additions

MARUTI ESTATE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2004-05

housing project" as referring to construction of any building and the wordings in Section 80IB(10) of the Act. In the circumstances, we hold that the mere fact that one of the blocks have units exceeding built-up area of 1500 sq.ft, per se, would not result in nullifying the claim of the assessee for the entire projects. Consequently

TRIJAL ENTERPRISES,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 4(1), BHUBANESWAR

Bench: S/Shri George Mathan & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Trijal Enterprises, Hall No.6, Vs. Acit, Circle-4(1), Fourth Floor, Bmc Bhawani Bhubaneswar Coom. Complex, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aakft 6687 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra,Ca P.K.Panda, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Dated 22.6.2020 In Appeal No.0366/2018-19 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm. The Partnership Firm Was Originally Constituted By Partnership Deed Dated 1.11.2015, Wherein, There Were Two Partners Namely; Shri Rajesh Polaki & Sri Malchit Chetan Kumar Patra. The Said Partnership Did Not Do Any Business. The Partnership Was Constituted For The Purpose Of Doing The Business Of Gold Jewellery. The Partnership Was Reconstituted On 1.3.2016, P A G E 1 | 37 Assessment Year : 2016-17

properties with Punjab & National Housing Finance Ltd., and State Bank of India. The date of creation of the charge being in 2018. In the balance sheet of M/s. Tribhuvan Tradecom Pvt Ltd., under assets, the land has been shown at Rs.10,79,20,150/- in the case of M/s. Tribhuvan Tradecom Private Limited for the year ended 31.3.2016. He further

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), NAGPUR vs. KHARE AND TARKUNDE INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roydcit, Central Circle-2(1), Khare & Tarkunde Nagpur Vs Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 235, Shivaji Complex, Dharmpeth, Nagpur Pan : Aaack 7184 N Department Assessee Assessee By : Shri Sachin V. Luthra, Ca Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.04.2026 O R D E R

17 (AY). 2. The sole issue raised by the Revenue in this appeal is, Ld.CIT(A) is not correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,56,72,000/- made by the Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) u/s. 43CA of the Act. 3. Facts of the case in brief are that assessee is company, engaged in the business of civil construction