ITAT Cuttack Judgments — February 2026

SIBARAM RAUT,BERHAMPUR vs ITO WARD-2, BERHAMPUR

ITA 72/CTK/2026[2017-2018]Status: Disposed24 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the assessee deals in perishable commodities and receives payments in cash, and the entire transaction was included in the disclosed income, the addition was unjustified. The Assessing Officer provided no reason to treat the balance as undisclosed income.

SHREE SHIRDI SAIBABA SEVA CHARATABLE TRUST,KEONJHAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO EXEMPTION CUTTACK

ITA 770/CTK/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed24 Feb 2026AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal noted that while a wrong return was filed, the intimation under Section 143(1) made adjustments not permissible under the Act. The CPC disallowed the expenditure claimed, which is not an allowed adjustment under Section 143(1). Therefore, the intimation was deemed unsubstantive.

PRATYUSHA CHANDRA SUBUDHI,BHUBANESWAR vs DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 90/CTK/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed24 Feb 2026AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the sale consideration should be considered as Rs.5,20,00,000/-. The reasoning was based on several discrepancies and observations. Firstly, the agreement dated 28.11.2014 was more detailed, including mobile numbers, whereas the agreement dated 30.5.2015 was vague, with an unclear notary serial number and no signature from the assessee. Crucially, the property was converted to freehold by an order dated 19.3.2015, prior to the second agreement, making the assessee's claim that the second agreement was necessitated by the delay in conversion false. The Tribunal found that the second agreement, dated 30.5.2015, appeared to have been created solely to reflect the government rate for registration (Rs.3,80,00,000/-) and to counter the AO's notice based on the original agreement. The original agreement for Rs.5,20,00,000/- was considered the primary agreement. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's argument that the revenue lacked evidence, stating that the assessee, having entered into the agreement, possessed knowledge of it, and the revenue came to know of it through a tax evasion petition. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was upheld. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed.

SRI BIDYADHAR DAS,BALASORE vs ITO, WARD-1, BALASORE

ITA 761/CTK/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed24 Feb 2026AY 2019-20Partly Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to substantiate his claim with relevant documents before the authorities below, leading to the dismissal of his appeal by the CIT(A). However, in the interest of justice, the issues are restored to the file of the AO.

JAGADISH BEHERA,KEONJHAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, KEONJHAR

ITA 437/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to substantiate their claim with documents and produce evidence as required by the CIT(A), leading to the dismissal of the appeal. However, in the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

CHILIKA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,BHUBANESWAR vs ACIT, TDS CIRCLE, BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 608/CTK/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed24 Feb 2026AY 2019-20Partly Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to substantiate their claim with relevant documents and evidence before the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given an adequate opportunity to be heard.

CHILIKA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,BHUBANESWAR vs ACIT, TDS CIRCLE, BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 607/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to substantiate their claim with relevant documents and evidence before the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given an adequate opportunity to be heard.

GEETA BAID,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER - JEYPORE, JEYPORE

ITA 756/CTK/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed24 Feb 2026AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 295 days after the Sr. DR did not object. The Tribunal restored the issues in appeal to the file of the AO for adjudicating afresh, providing the assessee with adequate opportunity of being heard.

STATE BANK OF INDIA,BALONI BRANCH,BALONI vs JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 765/CTK/2025[2011-12]Status: Disposed23 Feb 2026AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT, noting that the delay was not inordinate and that substantial justice should be preferred over technicality. The Tribunal also restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.

GOBINDA KUMURA,BANGURKELA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, JHARSUGUDA

ITA 609/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed23 Feb 2026AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal perused the compensation order issued by Mahanadi Coalfield Limited (MCL). It noted that the entire amount of Rs. 61,73,207.39 was clearly stated as compensation for the acquisition of agricultural land, which was also the assessee's ancestral land. Therefore, this amount was not taxable.

SATE BANK OF INDIA OFFICERS MULTI PURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ORISSA LIMITED,CUTTACK vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

ITA 18/CTK/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed23 Feb 2026AY 2019-20Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that with the quantum assessment order being set aside, the very foundation for the penalty under Section 270A no longer survived. Consequently, the penalty was deleted, although liberty was granted to the Assessing Officer to initiate fresh penalty proceedings if required in the set-aside quantum matter.

ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BHUBANESWAR vs DCIT,CIRCLE 1(1), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 42/CTK/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed23 Feb 2026AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the liquidation of the assessee and the Official Liquidator's commitment to cooperate, the issues were restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

NEW HOPE SOCIETY,BERHAMPUR vs ITO EXEMPTION, BERHAMPUR

ITA 44/CTK/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed23 Feb 2026AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide evidence showing the donors intended the development fees to be part of a corpus fund. The collection of these fees was in line with government-permitted fees for private colleges, and the break-up indicated a fixed amount collected from students, not a voluntary donation for a corpus.

GRAM VIKAS,MOHUDA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, BERHAMPUR

ITA 678/CTK/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed23 Feb 2026AY 2021-22Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the lower appellate authority had deleted the addition in its entirety but had erroneously typed the figure. The error in the order was corrected, and the deleted addition was confirmed as Rs. 3,51,46,410.

RAJESH KUMAR MISHRA,ROURKELA vs ITO WARD-1, ROURKELA, ROURKELA

ITA 63/CTK/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed20 Feb 2026AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and noted that the original assessment order was set aside, and the appeal against the reassessment order was pending. The issues in the current appeal, which pertains to the Section 154 order, relate to the applicability of Section 115BBE, which is dependent on the adjudication of additions made in the assessment/reassessment orders.

DINABANDHU FOUNDATION FOR EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH & SOCIO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,BHUBANESWAR vs ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

ITA 450/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: Heard20 Feb 2026AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that while a statement of purpose is required, a minor inaccuracy or lack of full declaration in Form No. 10 is not fatal if the purpose is clarified during assessment proceedings. The disallowance was deleted.

JANAKI SETHY,PALIKIRI, DHAMNAGAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHARAMPA

ITA 709/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed20 Feb 2026AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was a matric-pass lady and that her unawareness was exploited. The bank account statements showed cash deposits followed by immediate transfers, and a very low balance. The additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) were based on a mistaken assumption.

NAITIK EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,BHAWANIPATNA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, SAMBALPUR

ITA 61/CTK/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed20 Feb 2026AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CPC's action of denying exemption under section 11 and taxing the entire gross receipts under section 143(1) was beyond its powers. The Revenue should have resorted to assessment under section 143(3) to deny the exemption and assess the real income.

CHAKRADHAR JENA,NALAGARA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD BHADRAK

ITA 4/CTK/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed20 Feb 2026AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to substantiate its claim with relevant documents before the Assessing Officer. However, to provide an opportunity for substantiation, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with directions for the assessee to cooperate and provide necessary documents.

SUDHANSU RANJAN NAYAK,BHUBANESWAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(1),BHUBANESWAR , BHUBANESWAR

ITA 754/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Feb 2026AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act did not provide the assessee with the requisite seven clear days for response. This was in violation of the law as laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand in the case of Satish Kumar. Therefore, the notice was deemed invalid.

M/S.SWAYAMSHREE MAHILA SAMABAYA SAMITI LIMITED,CUTTACK vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

ITA 640/CTK/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Feb 2026AY 2020-21Dismissed

The Tribunal refused to hear the assessee's counsel due to the violation of court etiquette and rules. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed for failure of the counsel to appear properly.

MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,BARIPADA vs ITO, WARD-1, BARIPADA

ITA 649/CTK/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Feb 2026AY 2020-21Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that in the interest of justice, the issues in both appeals should be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with an adequate opportunity for the assessee to be heard. A cost was imposed on the assessee for non-cooperation.

M/S. SWAYAMSHREE MAHILA SAMABAYA SAMITI LIMITED,CUTTACK vs INCOME TX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

ITA 639/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Feb 2026AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal refused to hear the assessee's counsel due to the violation of court etiquette and rules. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed for failure of the counsel to appear properly.

RANI EPARI,GANJAM vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BERHAMPUR, BERHAMPUR

ITA 670/CTK/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Feb 2026AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to substantiate its claim and produce necessary documents before the lower authorities, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. In the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the file of the Jurisdictional AO for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

RAVIKANT SABALKA,SAMBALPUR vs ITO, WARD-2(1), SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

ITA 669/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Feb 2026AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the PCIT for re-adjudication, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard. However, due to the assessee's non-cooperation, a cost of Rs. 25,000 was imposed on the assessee.

TRIMURTI STEELS,BHUBANESWAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 625/CTK/2025[2012-13]Status: Heard19 Feb 2026AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded for reopening did not mention any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. The reopening was done beyond four years, and the proviso to Section 147 requires such failure for reopening. Therefore, the reopening was quashed.

MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,BARIPADA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARIPADA, BARIPADA

ITA 650/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed19 Feb 2026AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that in the interest of justice, the issues in both appeals should be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with an adequate opportunity for the assessee to be heard. A cost was imposed on the assessee for non-cooperation.

BEBABRATA MOHANTY,CUTTACK vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

ITA 642/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Feb 2026AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to substantiate their claims with relevant documents before the AO and CIT(A), leading to ex-parte dismissal. In the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication. However, due to the assessee's non-cooperation, a cost of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed on the assessee for each appeal.

DEBABRATA MOHANTY,CUTTACK vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), CUTTACK

ITA 641/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Feb 2026AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to substantiate their claims with relevant documents before the AO and CIT(A), leading to ex-parte dismissal. In the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication. However, due to the assessee's non-cooperation, a cost of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed on the assessee for each appeal.

SATYASAI MINES & MINERALS LIMITED.,BHUBANESWAR vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 815/CTK/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed18 Feb 2026AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay, stating that substantial justice should be preferred over technicalities like limitation. The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to produce relevant documents and evidence before the lower authorities.

BIDYA BHARATI EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BHUBANESWAR vs ITO, EXEMPTION, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 779/CTK/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed18 Feb 2026AY 2022-23Partly Allowed

The Tribunal's decision, as stated in the provided text, is that the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. The reasoning behind this decision, the specific findings on any issues, and the operative directions beyond the partial allowance for statistical purposes are not elaborated. The judgment does not specify any issue that was expressly left undecided. Therefore, the ratio decidendi that could be cited for another case is not available from this excerpt.

AYIMAT KHAN,BHADRAK vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHADRAK

ITA 726/CTK/2025[2015-2016]Status: Disposed18 Feb 2026AY 2015-2016Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). Since the quantum issues on which the penalties were levied were restored for readjudication, the basis for the penalty no longer survived. Therefore, the penalties were deleted.

PRAVAKAR PATRA,BHADRAK vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD,BHADRAK, BHADRAK

ITA 80/CTK/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed18 Feb 2026AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 361 days in filing the appeals. The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not substantiate its claim due to a lack of relevant documents and failed to produce evidence as required. While the AO passed an ex-parte order and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, the Tribunal decided to restore the issues to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

PRAVAKAR PATRA,BHADRAK vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, BHADRAK, BHADRAK

ITA 78/CTK/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed18 Feb 2026AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 361 days in filing the appeals. The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not substantiate its claim due to a lack of relevant documents and failed to produce evidence as required. While the AO passed an ex-parte order and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, the Tribunal decided to restore the issues to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

PRAVAKAR PATRA,BHADRAK vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD BHADRAK, BHADRAK

ITA 79/CTK/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed18 Feb 2026AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 361 days in filing the appeals. The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not substantiate its claim due to a lack of relevant documents and failed to produce evidence as required. While the AO passed an ex-parte order and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, the Tribunal decided to restore the issues to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

PRAVAKAR PATRA,BHADRAK vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD BHADRAK, BHADRAK

ITA 81/CTK/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed18 Feb 2026AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 361 days in filing the appeals. The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not substantiate its claim due to a lack of relevant documents and failed to produce evidence as required. While the AO passed an ex-parte order and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, the Tribunal decided to restore the issues to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

NATIONAL INSTITUTUTE FOR COMUNITY AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT,KALAPATHRA vs I.T.O(EXEMPTION), BHUBANESWAR., AT-VSS NAGAR ROAD, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 652/CTK/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed18 Feb 2026AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not substantiate its claim and failed to produce required evidence, leading to the dismissal of appeals by the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, with a cost imposed on the assessee for non-cooperation.

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR COMMUNITY AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT,KALAPATHARA vs I.T.O(EXEMPTION), BHUBANESWAR, VSS NAGAR ROAD, BHUBANESAWAR

ITA 651/CTK/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed18 Feb 2026AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not substantiate its claim and failed to produce required evidence, leading to the dismissal of appeals by the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, with a cost imposed on the assessee for non-cooperation.

PANCHAYAT SAMITI DANAGADI,JAJPUR vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD TDS, CUTTACK, CUTTACK

ITA 747/CTK/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed18 Feb 2026AY 2021-22Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeals. The appeals were dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) because the assessee failed to substantiate claims and produce evidence. The Tribunal restored the issues to the AO for fresh adjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER CON. EAST COAST RAILWAY,JAJPUR vs ITO, WARD TDS, CUTTACK

ITA 781/CTK/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed18 Feb 2026AY 2014-15Partly Allowed