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

house property in Plot No.66/71, Khata No.16/130 for Rs.29,50,000/- on 31.3.2008 and sold the property at Rs.33,00,000/- as is evident from the sale deed as against the prevailing government bench mark value of Rs.68,,07,250/-.. Therefore, the Assessing Officer applying the provisions of section

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

50,000/- towards interest on housing loan. 7. In reply, ld Sr DR submitted that the issue must be restored to the file of the AO for verification as to whether the loan has been taken for the purpose of construction of the house property. It was the submission that the period of construction of house would also have

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

50,000/- towards interest on housing loan. 7. In reply, ld Sr DR submitted that the issue must be restored to the file of the AO for verification as to whether the loan has been taken for the purpose of construction of the house property. It was the submission that the period of construction of house would also have

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.

50,000/- on account of undisclosed receipt towards cost of iron ore fines ignoring the fact that refusal to make payment by the AMG group to the assessee in violation of MOU is not possible and the assessee has not instituted any legal proceeding against AMG group and was failed to furnish anyu correspondence with the AMG group in this

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

section 64(1)(iv) will not operate to nullify gift and would operate only to club income in the hands of donor assessee. 14. At this juncture, it is also relevant to note that the assessee is the owner of only one property i.e. JPH-03, Central Park, Sector 4, having 50% of share as per conveyance deed available

SRI MANOJ DASH,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.405/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Sri Manoj Dash, Vs Ito, Ward-2(3), Bhubaneswar Plot No.F/2, Amrita Residency Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aeopd 6174 N (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sovesh Ch. Mohanty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.01.2016, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Even The Case Was Called For Second Round For Hearing. Therefore, The Bench Proceeded To Dispose Off The Case After Considering The Arguments Of Ld. Dr & The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 3. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In This Appeal Are As Under :- 1. For That, The Impugned Order Of Assessment Passed By The Forums Below Are Not Just & Proper Under The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, As Such The Additions Made Therein Are Liable To Be Deleted In The Interest Of Justice.

house building loan of Rs.1,50,000.00, particularly when, it was disallowed by the learned A.O. on wrong interpretation of law and the Assessee is lawfully entitled for the same. The impugned disallowance, thus being not sustainable in the eye of law is liable to be allowed in the interest of justice. 6. For that, your Appellant craves leave

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

50,000/- as other miscellaneous income. Please furnish the details the income shown with complete documentary evidence. 8. You have shown a loss of Rs.1,46,513/- as loss from house property. Please furnish the details. Details of movable & immovable properties in the following format:- Sl.No. Details of Value of Purchase Date of Name of Mode of Source Relationship assets

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

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

50,600/- representing the cost of the land and building purchased and the for the assessment year 2016-2017. Further the construction cost of Rs.36,61,432/- is also allowable u/s.54F of the Act. It was the submission by the ld. Sr. Advocate that the assessee had purchased a land and building consisting of 2178 sq.ft. (approximately 0.005 decimal) along

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

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

50,600/- representing the cost of the land and building purchased and the for the assessment year 2016-2017. Further the construction cost of Rs.36,61,432/- is also allowable u/s.54F of the Act. It was the submission by the ld. Sr. Advocate that the assessee had purchased a land and building consisting of 2178 sq.ft. (approximately 0.005 decimal) along

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 income. It was the submission that Section 44AA requires the maintenance of books of account, if the assessee is having any income from business. It was the submission that the Assessing Officer had made the addition on the ground that

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

property, conducts agricultural operations then he is capable of having a bank account and further noted that no evidence has been brought on record regarding assets and liabilities of Dambarudhar Nayak and filing of return of income. Finally, the AO concluded that there was intention of tax evasion on the part of the assessee and levied penalty of Rs.7,50

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

house property, business and profession and other sources and balance sheet was filed along with supportive financial statement. The Id AR's contention that the assessee was holding the cash for the business operations at Jaipur and there is no malafide intension and the said transaction was disclosed in the income tax return. Further the Id. AR emphasized that

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

house property, business and profession and other sources and balance sheet was filed along with supportive financial statement. The Id AR's contention that the assessee was holding the cash for the business operations at Jaipur and there is no malafide intension and the said transaction was disclosed in the income tax return. Further the Id. AR emphasized that

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

KOTHAKOTA RAMA RAO,RAYAGADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

50 lakhs was received from DORB customers and Rs.25 Lakhs received from Sri Gandhi Thakur Das, Surat. Q.90 I am showing you Pages-89 to 91 of seized documents identified as JRR-37 which clearly show payment of interest made by you as detailed below. 5X75X1.25 468750 5monthsX75 LakhsXI.25% = Rs.4,68,750/-. That means you have paid interest of Rs.4

KOTHAKOTA RAMA RAO,RAYAGADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

50 lakhs was received from DORB customers and Rs.25 Lakhs received from Sri Gandhi Thakur Das, Surat. Q.90 I am showing you Pages-89 to 91 of seized documents identified as JRR-37 which clearly show payment of interest made by you as detailed below. 5X75X1.25 468750 5monthsX75 LakhsXI.25% = Rs.4,68,750/-. That means you have paid interest of Rs.4

KOTHAKOTA RAMA RAO,RAYAGADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

50 lakhs was received from DORB customers and Rs.25 Lakhs received from Sri Gandhi Thakur Das, Surat. Q.90 I am showing you Pages-89 to 91 of seized documents identified as JRR-37 which clearly show payment of interest made by you as detailed below. 5X75X1.25 468750 5monthsX75 LakhsXI.25% = Rs.4,68,750/-. That means you have paid interest of Rs.4

RONALD EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

house and a residential institution for the students and those connected with the institution. 5. To invest, dispose of, transfer and otherwise deal with the subject-matter of the Trust in such manner as the Trustees should deem fit so as to enable the institution to carry on the objects of the Trust efficiently. 6. To accept donations, grants, presentations