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

DHANESWAR RATH INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND MEDICAL SCIENCES,CUTTACK vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

property held under the trust. The assessee is, therefore, not entitled to exemption u/s.11 and as such, this excess amount of Rs.5,65,70,741/- should have been brought to tax. 7. Accordingly, the Pr. CIT (Exemption), issued show cause notice u/s.263(1) of the Act on 26.3.2021, to which, the assessee requested for adjournment of case for 15 days

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 263 of the Act. Accordingly, he prayed for cancellation of the order passed by the ld. Pr.CIT. 5. On the other hand, ld. CIT-DR vehemently supported the order of the ld. Pr.CIT and submitted that the AO has wrongly assessed the rental income as income from business instead of its correct head i.e. "income from house property

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

section 263 of the I.T.Act,1961. However, before doing so, I deem it proper to allow the assessee an opportunity of being heard which is fixed at 11.30. A.M. on 29.01.2019- in my office at 2nd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Rajhaswa Vihar, Bhubaneswar. You may appear either in person or through your authorized representative to represent your case

SUDHANSU SEKHAR RAY,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year :2007-08

house property made by the AO as there was no sale of flats by the appellant. Receipts of 10 flats from the builder in place of HUF’s land is not a transfer in relation to Section 2(47) of the I.T.Act but only conversion of form of asset from land to building(flats) on same price

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

RAJ KISHORE PRUSTY,KENDRAPARA vs. PR. CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Raj Kishore Prusty,At: Nuapatna, Raj Kishore Prusty,At: Nuapatna, Vs. Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar-1 Po: Chandol, Dist: Kendrapara Po: Chandol, Dist: Kendrapara Pan/Gir No. No.Atdpp 8328 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.Parida, Ca D.Parida, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 8 /3/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/ /4/2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg G, Jm This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Pr. Cit-1, Bhubaneswar 1, Bhubaneswar U/S.263 Of The Act Dated 26.3.2021 U/S.263 Of The Act Dated 26.3.2021 For The Assessment Year .2016-17. 17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:

section will be attracted. An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous. In the same category fall orders passed without applying the principles of natural justice or without application of mind. The phrase prejudicial to the interests of the revenue is not an expression

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

263 of the Act, in our humble understanding, in this section, the legislature, in its wisdom, has given a minicode/procedure to be followed by the revisionary authority i.e. ld Pr.CIT for revision of assessment order, wherein, first of all, he would call and examine the record of any proceedings under the Act, and if he consider that any order passed

PARIJA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT. LTD,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.S Saini

263 ITR 143 (SC), the Assessing Officer held that the rental income was to be assessed as income from house property and not as income from business. Asse ssment Years: 2 00 6-0 7 & 20 08- 09 6. On appeal, ld CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 7. Before me, ld A.R. of the assessee submitted

PURNA CHANDRA BISWAL,JAJPUR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.200/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Sri Purna Chandra Biswal, Vs. Principal Cit, Cuttack Jakhapura, Jajpur-755019 स्थायी लेखा सं./Panno. : Aclpb 1493 P (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.M.Keshkamat, Citdr

house property Rs. 87,115/- F. Income from other sources Rs. 7,63,190/- Gross total income Rs.29,97,768/- Less; Deduction u/s.,8OC Rs. 1,00,000/- Total income Rs. 28,97,768/- Or, u/s. 288A Rs. 28,97,770/- Assessed u/s. 143(3} of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on a total income of Rs.28,97,770/-. Calculation

CHARHIL KUMAR SAHOO,BHUBANESWAR vs. PR.CIT, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 263 of the Act. It was also submitted by the ld. AR of the assessee that both the authorities below have not found that the assessee has made 4 any investment in movable or immovable properties during the year under consideration. 6. Apart from the above submissions, ld. AR of the assessee also drew our attention to the bank

M/S- SBEP-GRIL(JOINT VENTURE),JHARSUGUDA vs. PRINCIPAL 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

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

SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD,JHARSUGUDA vs. PRINCIPAL 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

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

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

263 [SC] ii) CIT Vs Lovely Exports (P) Ltd 216 CTR 195[SC] iii) CIT, Meerut Vs M/s VAN Resorts & Hotels (P) Ltd. Allahabad HC iii) CIT, Meerut Vs Nav Bharat Duples Ltd. Allahabad HC iv) CIT Vs Oasis Hospitalities Pvt Ltd & UP Bone Mills India Ltd. Delhi HC v) Vijay power generators Ltd & Director of Income Tax, Delhi

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

Section 80IA(4) of the Act the enterprises which is eligible for deduction is the “joint venture firm” and not any of the constituent as has been claimed by the assesee. 27. In the last, it is observed that in the case of M/s Rawat-Balaji-JV and M/s SBEPL-GRIL-JV in A.Y.2014-2015, the department proposed