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

house but is a commercial property. Therefore, we are of the view that the assesee is entitled to the benefit of deduction u/s.54F of the Act. In these circumstances, the AO is directed to grant the assesee benefit of Section 4 54F of the Act as claimed by the assesee. Thus, the appeal of the assesee is allowed on 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

6 | 8 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Enclave, which is a self occupied property. At the beginning of the specified date being 27.12.2014, admittedly, the assessee did hold two residential properties. However, at the end of the specified date, the assessee own only one residential house. A perusal of the proviso to section

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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 assets value purchase the seller payment with the seller 6. It was the submission that after examining all the details, the original assessment was concluded. In absence of any fresh

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

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

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

6. It was submitted by the ld. Sr. Advocate that the second issue relates to the assessment year 2015-2016 wherein the assessee had claimed deduction u/s.54F in respect of the four-storied house building including basement purchased by the assessee. It was the submission that the said building was used for the residence of the assessee. It was submitted

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

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

6. It was submitted by the ld. Sr. Advocate that the second issue relates to the assessment year 2015-2016 wherein the assessee had claimed deduction u/s.54F in respect of the four-storied house building including basement purchased by the assessee. It was the submission that the said building was used for the residence of the assessee. It was submitted

MR. TAPAN KUMAR BHUYAN,SALEPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

house property as such is not reflected in Form No-16 of Rs 19,517.00 Being aggrieved by the order of assessment u/s 143(3) row's 147 of the lncome Tax Act, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of lncome Tax (A) Cuttack. The Commissioner of lncome Tax (A), (NFAC) dismissed the appeal without applying his judicial

MR. TAPAN KUMAR BHUYAN,SALEPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

house property as such is not reflected in Form No-16 of Rs 19,517.00 Being aggrieved by the order of assessment u/s 143(3) row's 147 of the lncome Tax Act, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of lncome Tax (A) Cuttack. The Commissioner of lncome Tax (A), (NFAC) dismissed the appeal without applying his judicial

MR. TAPAN KUMAR BHUYAN,SALEPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

house property as such is not reflected in Form No-16 of Rs 19,517.00 Being aggrieved by the order of assessment u/s 143(3) row's 147 of the lncome Tax Act, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of lncome Tax (A) Cuttack. The Commissioner of lncome Tax (A), (NFAC) dismissed the appeal without applying his judicial

MR. TAPAN KUMAR BHUYAN,SALEPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

house property as such is not reflected in Form No-16 of Rs 19,517.00 Being aggrieved by the order of assessment u/s 143(3) row's 147 of the lncome Tax Act, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of lncome Tax (A) Cuttack. The Commissioner of lncome Tax (A), (NFAC) dismissed the appeal without applying his judicial

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

6. Coming to the issue of denial of deduction of the interest on housing loan to an extent of Rs.1,50,000/-, it was submitted by ld AR that the assessee has filed the return in response to notice issued u/s.148 by the Assessing Officer and the assessee has, for the first time, made the claim in the respective assessment

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

6. Coming to the issue of denial of deduction of the interest on housing loan to an extent of Rs.1,50,000/-, it was submitted by ld AR that the assessee has filed the return in response to notice issued u/s.148 by the Assessing Officer and the assessee has, for the first time, made the claim in the respective assessment

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

BHAVENDRA HASMUKHLAL PATADIA (L/H. HASMUKHLAL PATADIA),AHEMDABAD vs. ITO WARD-1 (1), CUTTACK

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2015-16 Hasmukh Hasmukh Lal Lal Patadia, Patadia, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chauliaganj, Chauliaganj, Chauliaganj, Chauliaganj, 1(1), Cuttack 1(1), Cuttack Nayabazar, Cuttack Nayabazar, Cuttack Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Adapp 6256 G (L/H) (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah,Adv Shah,Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/0 04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/0 /04/2024 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), Cit(A), Nfac, Nfac, Delhi Delhi Dated Dated 17.5.2023 In In Appeal Appeal No. No.Cit(A), Cuttack/10491/2017 Cuttack/10491/2017-18 For The Assessment Year 2015 2015-16. 2. Shri Deepak Deepak Shah, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri D Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr. Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

section 69 could also be considered. It was the submission that what has been produced in respect of cash flow statement, funds flow statement and books of account have never been submitted before the Assessing officer. The notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee and it was for the assessee to produce the evidence to substantiate