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

properties. However, at the end of the specified date, the assessee own only one residential house. A perusal of the proviso to section 54F

PRAVANSHU SAMANTARAY,CUTTACK vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assesee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.369/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) Pravanshu Samantaray, Vs Ito, Ward-1(1), Cuttack C/O : Adikanda Samantaray, At: Rajabagicha,Po Telenga Bazar Dist : Cuttack-753009 Pan No. : Acxps 7565 D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Sr. Dr राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi, Dated 29/04/2025, For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assesee Owned One Residential House Representing A Flat In Bhubaneswar Where The Assesee Is Staying. The Assesee Is Also Deriving Rental Income From A Commercial Property Jointly Owned By The Assesee & His Brothers & Sisters. It Was The Submission That The Commercial Property Was Received By The Assesee On The Demise Of His Father. It Was The Submission That The Said Commercial Property Was A Joint Owned Property With The Brothers & Sisters Of The Assesee. It Was The Submission That The Assesee Also Owned

Section 54F of the Act clearly shows that the assesee should not own more than one residential house other than the new assets on the date of transfer of the original asset. The words used is “residential house”, admittedly, the property

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PURI vs. KRUSHNA CHANDRA PUJAPANDA, PURI

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objection of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.448/Ctk/2024 C.O. No.06/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2022-23) Income Tax Officer, Aayakar Vs Krushna Chandra Pujapanda, Bhavan, Penthakata, Puri Matimandap Sahi, H.O.Puri Town, Puri. Pan No. : Abdpp 0879 N .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kumar Chatterjee, Ca : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Ld Cit राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 5 /12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 5 /12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 4.9.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi In Appeal No.Nfac/2021-22/10363554 For The Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. The Cross Objection Is Filed By The Assessee In Appeal Filed By The Revenue In Ita No.448/Ctk/2024. 3. Shri Ashok Kumar Chatterjee, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

property has taken place from M/s. Peerless Hotels Ltd., to M/s. Pujari Estate & Developers Pvt Ltd., it was submitted that the position still remains as advance only and the transfer has not taken place. It was the further submission that the ld CIT(A) has granted the benefit of section 54F of the Act and that should be upheld

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

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

property also shows that one floor is being used by the assessee as his residential house. This being so, we are of the view that the assessee is entitled to claim under Section 54F

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

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

property also shows that one floor is being used by the assessee as his residential house. This being so, we are of the view that the assessee is entitled to claim under Section 54F

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

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

section 54F had been amended to replace the word “a” with word “one”. It was the submission that the assessee was entitled to deduction u/s.54F only in respect of one residential house whereas the assessee has claimed exemption u/s.54F in respect of entire 37425 sq.ft. It was the submission that the Assessing Officer by not applying the correct