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

house property Rs.2,23,680/- for the assessment year 2011-2012 & 2012-2013. In this regard, ld. AR submitted that the deductee/payee has paid tax thereon, therefore, the deductor is not to be treated as assessee-in-default as per Section 201

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

property in the year under appeal as per the Joint Development Agreement; therefore, the transfer took place in the year 2017-18 and not the assessment year 2012-13 as claimed by the assessee. He further submits that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s.54F on the four flats which are separate units and as per Section 54F, the assessee

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

section 56(2)(vi), which defines the term relative, the Assessing Officer held that Shri Mohapatra does no come within the said definition of relative and, accordingly, the gift of Rs.3,00,000/- received from Shri Mohapatra is liable to tax u/s.56. 7. In respect of the other donors, the Assessing Officer held, on examination of the details furnished that

SARADA BHUSHAN MOHANTY,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 1(1), SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year : 2009-2010

201 0 mentioned that same should be allowed under the head income from house property. Although the return was accepted under section

DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. S.M.CHARITABLE EDUCATIONAL TRUST, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

property is used directly for the benefit of the person referred to in sub-section (3) of section 13. In other words, utilization of the guest house by Mudali family clearly attracts the provisions of section 13(1)( c) of the I.T. Act. b. Saiary given to trustees:- Shri Sangram Mudali and Smt Geetika Mudali, being the trustee members receive

DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. S.M.CHARITABLE EDUCATIONAL TRUST, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

property is used directly for the benefit of the person referred to in sub-section (3) of section 13. In other words, utilization of the guest house by Mudali family clearly attracts the provisions of section 13(1)( c) of the I.T. Act. b. Saiary given to trustees:- Shri Sangram Mudali and Smt Geetika Mudali, being the trustee members receive

DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. S.M.CHARITABLE EDUCATIONAL TRUST, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

property is used directly for the benefit of the person referred to in sub-section (3) of section 13. In other words, utilization of the guest house by Mudali family clearly attracts the provisions of section 13(1)( c) of the I.T. Act. b. Saiary given to trustees:- Shri Sangram Mudali and Smt Geetika Mudali, being the trustee members receive

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

201 5 3.For that the non-consideration of claim of deduction amounting to Rs.1,50,000, though evidence provided during the course of assessment proceeding, while computing Income from House Property under income tax act is arbitrary, unjustified and not tenable in the eyes of law. Hence liable to be considered. 4.For that consequential levy of interest U/s. 234A amounting

RUKMANI INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.358/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Rukmani Infra Projects Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Plot No.251, District Centre, C.S.Pur, Bhubaneswar-16 Pan No. : Aaecr 1585 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit-Dr राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Has Been Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 16.06.2017, For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Extracted From The Available Records Are That, The Assessee, A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956, Engaged In The Business Of Erection, Commissioning, Technical & Maintenance Service To Different Power Plants. The Return Of Income For The Ay 2013-14 Was Filed By The Assessee On 01.10.2013 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,65,91,030/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected Under Cass. Notice U/S 143(2) & 143(1) Were Issued & Served On The Assessee. Assessment Proceedings Were Completed By The Ao & Concluded With An Addition Of Rs.3,58,95,574/- Under Four Different

houses are constructed near work site for providing accommodation for a temporary period to people who are working at the work site. 29 2. The lands on which the labour hutments are situated are the property of the plant owner where the company had executed the work. 3. The work order against which the work was executed are awarded

M/S. THE MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,CUTTACK vs. DCIT, BALASORE

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

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2011-2012

house property, without making it necessary to shown the evidence of such expense having been actually incurred. The AO had failed to appreciate that section 36(l)(viia) is amended by the Finance Act, 2007 to include co-operative banks for the purpose of deduction under this section retrospectively from 1st April, 2007 and subsequent years. This amendment was brought

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

201 (Rajastan) CIT vs. Bhagwati Prasad Bajoria (HUF) (2003) 26 ITR 0487 CIT vs Saini Medical Store (2005) 275 ITR 79 b. No penalty u/s 2710/E should be impossible on the assessee for any failure referred in provision which include section 2710, if it is proved that there is a reasonable cause for failure of Reasonable causes was sufficiently made

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

201 (Rajastan) CIT vs. Bhagwati Prasad Bajoria (HUF) (2003) 26 ITR 0487 CIT vs Saini Medical Store (2005) 275 ITR 79 b. No penalty u/s 2710/E should be impossible on the assessee for any failure referred in provision which include section 2710, if it is proved that there is a reasonable cause for failure of Reasonable causes was sufficiently made

M/S. NARESH PHARMACEUTICAL AGENCIES,CUTTACK vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CUTTACK

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

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2011-12

House Property & Interest Income apart from being partner in the Firm. Acer being satisfied fully with the details as explained by the petitioner firm, the Learned Assessing officer had been pleased to pass an Assessment order U/s 143(3) of the l.Tax Act,1961. [ The Partner's Capital Account marked as Schedue-1] in Audit Report along with Statement

ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.392&393/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014 – 2015 & 2015-2016) M/S Orissa State Co-Operative Vs. Ito Wardd-4(1), Handicrafts Corporation Limited Bhubaneswar D-2/3, Industrial Estate, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaaao 0096 K (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Goutam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am :

Section 143(3) with a total addition of Rs. 20,31,710/- over returned income of Rs 47,20,800/-. The Ld Assessing Officer has made addition of Rs. 18,02,122/- on account of interest accrued under miscellaneous receipt treating it as Income from other sources rather than business and profession, Adhoc disallowance of expenses @10% to the tune

ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.392&393/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014 – 2015 & 2015-2016) M/S Orissa State Co-Operative Vs. Ito Wardd-4(1), Handicrafts Corporation Limited Bhubaneswar D-2/3, Industrial Estate, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaaao 0096 K (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Goutam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am :

Section 143(3) with a total addition of Rs. 20,31,710/- over returned income of Rs 47,20,800/-. The Ld Assessing Officer has made addition of Rs. 18,02,122/- on account of interest accrued under miscellaneous receipt treating it as Income from other sources rather than business and profession, Adhoc disallowance of expenses @10% to the tune

MAMATA PATRA,BHUBANESWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-5, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 269SS of the Act. Ld. AR’s contention that the assessee has not evaded any tax and Sachidananda Nayak and 4 Dambarudhar Nayak, from whom the assessee has accepted the cash loans, have disclosed the transaction in their accounts. The ld. AR further emphasized that the statements were recorded from the persons in respect of cash loan of Rs.7.5

SASWAT INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2010-2011

section 80-IB(10) nor does it forfeit the right of the developer to it'. As per the Oxford Advance Learner's Dictionary, a developer is a person or company that buys land or building in order to build new houses, shops/stores, etc. or improves the old ones and makes a profit from doing this. As per Mozley & Whitely

M/S- RAWAT BALAJI (JOINT VENTURE),JHARSUGUDA vs. PRILNCIPAL, CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

housing, feeding and transport. (vi) The appellant had to utilize its expertise, experience including its technical know- how in the development of the project. (vii) The appellant provided all the necessary superintendence required during the execution of project (viii) The assessee was required to bear all the risk of loss of or damage to physical property and of personal injury