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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

House Property Rental income Rs.24,69,840/- Less: 30% Deducttion u/s.24(1) Rs.7,40,952/- 17,28,888/- Income from Business : Net Proift as per P & L A/c. Rs.3,96,329/- Less : Income to be considered Separately Rental Income Rs.24,69,840/- Interest received Rs.9,01,211/- Rs.33,71,051/- (-) Rs.29,74,722/- Add: Depreciation on Building given on rent

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

9 of Bidanasi Project Area. Therefore, the claim of the AO that the assesee has not purchased a residential house no more survives. 5. Now, coming to the issue of deduction u/s.54A of the Act, the facts clearly shows that the assesee owns one residential house representing a flat in Acrux Neon, Rudrapur, Bhubaneswar. Second property is admittedly a commercial

DCIT,CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/SD. SRB CONSULTANCY (P) LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

House Property. 4. For that when the forums below including the CIT (A) has accepted the vehicles (as reflected in the Fixed Asset Schedule) to be owned by the respondent company 8& failed to bring any material into record pointing any evidence of personal use 8s the depreciation have been allowed on year to year, the present estimated disallowance

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

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

9 Assessm ent Y ear : 20 09- 201 0 mentioned that same should be allowed under the head income from house property. Although the return was accepted under section

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.

section 153B can be availed by the AO any number of times whenever it is so required (para-18). In view of above facts, this ground of appeal taken by the appellant is required to be dismissed. 9. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. The common legal issue raised before us by the assessee

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

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 that in assessment year 2002-03, the assessee had shown the rental income from the property as income from

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

section 50C of the Act took the full value of consideration received on sale of house property as Rs.68,07,250/- and computed the long-term capital gain at Rs.17,79,936/-. While taking this view, the Assessing Officer took the cost of acquisition with indexation at the same amount of Rs.50,27,324/- as disclosed by the assessee

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

MJSJ COAL LIMITED,ANGUL vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), BHUBANESWAR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.429/Ctk/2016, 68/Ctk/2017 & 107/Ctk/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / A.Ys :2011-2012, 2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Mjsj Coal Limited, Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Dhenkanal / At/Po:Balanda, Talcher, Ito, Ward-1(3), Bhubaneswar Dist-Angul, Odisha-759116 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcm 1095 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bal, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Citdr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 28/08/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 31/08/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-1&3, Bhubaneswar, Dated 28.04.2016, 04.11.2016 & 04.12.2017 Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0120/2014-15, 0472/15-16 & 0254/16-17, For The Assessment Years 2011-2012, 2013-2014 & 2014- 2015. 2. Since Issues The Above Appeals Are Common, Therefore, They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience We Shall Take Up Assessee’S Appeal I.E. Ita No.429/Ctk/2016 For Assessment Year 2011-2012 & The Grounds & Facts Mentioned Therein, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- Ground Of Appeal • We Are Not Agreeing With The Computation Of Tax On Interest Earn By Company Made By Assessing Officer. • During The Assessment, The Cases We Submitted To Justify Our Claim (As Mentioned In Statement Of Facts) Has Not Been Paid Any Emphasis For Deciding The Case By The A.0 & Cit (Appeal- 3),Bhubaneswar. On The Other Hand The A.0 & Cit (Appeal-3) Finally Imposed His Decision Based On The Facts Of Alkali Tuticorin Chem. & Fertilizers Ltd. In Which It Has Earned Interest On The Funds, Were Borrowed Funds Only

9. Similarly the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Limited, New Delhi Vs. ITO, 315 ITR 255 (Delhi), has held as under :- 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Following substantial question of law arises for our consideration : "Whether the Tribunal misdirected itself in law in holding

MJSJ COAL LIMITED,ANGUL vs. ITO, WARD-2, DHENKANAL

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.429/Ctk/2016, 68/Ctk/2017 & 107/Ctk/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / A.Ys :2011-2012, 2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Mjsj Coal Limited, Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Dhenkanal / At/Po:Balanda, Talcher, Ito, Ward-1(3), Bhubaneswar Dist-Angul, Odisha-759116 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcm 1095 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bal, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Citdr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 28/08/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 31/08/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-1&3, Bhubaneswar, Dated 28.04.2016, 04.11.2016 & 04.12.2017 Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0120/2014-15, 0472/15-16 & 0254/16-17, For The Assessment Years 2011-2012, 2013-2014 & 2014- 2015. 2. Since Issues The Above Appeals Are Common, Therefore, They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience We Shall Take Up Assessee’S Appeal I.E. Ita No.429/Ctk/2016 For Assessment Year 2011-2012 & The Grounds & Facts Mentioned Therein, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- Ground Of Appeal • We Are Not Agreeing With The Computation Of Tax On Interest Earn By Company Made By Assessing Officer. • During The Assessment, The Cases We Submitted To Justify Our Claim (As Mentioned In Statement Of Facts) Has Not Been Paid Any Emphasis For Deciding The Case By The A.0 & Cit (Appeal- 3),Bhubaneswar. On The Other Hand The A.0 & Cit (Appeal-3) Finally Imposed His Decision Based On The Facts Of Alkali Tuticorin Chem. & Fertilizers Ltd. In Which It Has Earned Interest On The Funds, Were Borrowed Funds Only

9. Similarly the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Limited, New Delhi Vs. ITO, 315 ITR 255 (Delhi), has held as under :- 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Following substantial question of law arises for our consideration : "Whether the Tribunal misdirected itself in law in holding

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE -1(2), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. POSCO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2015-16 Dcit, Corporate Circle Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Vs. M/S. Posco India Pvt Ltd., M/S. Posco India Pvt Ltd., Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Ground Floor, Fortune Towers, Ground Floor, Fortune Towers, Zone-6, 6, Chandrasekharpur, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. No.Aadcp 6735 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) C.O.No.09/Ctk/2020 (In Ita No.423/Ctk/2019) (In Ita No.423/Ctk/2019) Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Posco India Pvt Ltd., M/S. Posco India Pvt Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Ground Floor, Fortune Towers, Ground Floor, Fortune Towers, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Zone-6, 6, Chandrasekharpur, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aadcp 6735 B Pan/Gir No.Aadcp 6735 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

house property. Likewise,a company may P a g e 11 | 16 C.O.No.09/CTK/2020 Assessment Year : 2015-16 have income from other sources.................The company may also, as in that case, keep the surplus funds in short-term deposits in order to earn interest. Such interest will be chargeable under section 56 of the Income-tax Act". Subsequently

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

properties and misapplication of trust money for the personal benefit is everywhere in evidence. The trust is clearly hit by the express provisions of section 13 and ineligible for exemption." 4. Being arrived, the appellant filed appeal against the impugned order of assessment. In the course of appellate proceedings, the Ld. AR produced the written submission substantiating the grounds

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

properties and misapplication of trust money for the personal benefit is everywhere in evidence. The trust is clearly hit by the express provisions of section 13 and ineligible for exemption." 4. Being arrived, the appellant filed appeal against the impugned order of assessment. In the course of appellate proceedings, the Ld. AR produced the written submission substantiating the grounds

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

properties and misapplication of trust money for the personal benefit is everywhere in evidence. The trust is clearly hit by the express provisions of section 13 and ineligible for exemption." 4. Being arrived, the appellant filed appeal against the impugned order of assessment. In the course of appellate proceedings, the Ld. AR produced the written submission substantiating the grounds

ITO, WARD-3(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR vs. GAYA SANTARA, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year :2008-09

9. He further relied on the decision of Hon’ble A.P. High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sayed Ali Adil, 352 ITR418(AP), wherein, it was held that deduction under section 54 of the Act is allowable with respect to residential house consisting of several independent units also.. 10. On the other hand, ld D.R. relied

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