MUKESH AGARWAL,ROURKELA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 1, ROURKELA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.631/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Mukesh Agarwal, Vs Ito Ward-1, Rourkela O-18, Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan No. : Adipa 0575 D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ayush Agarwal, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/02/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm :

condone the delay of 12 days in filing the appeal and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 3. At the outset, ld. AR submitted that the assessee purchased shares of Panchshul Marketing Ltd. from Overflow Merchyandise Pvt. Ltd. via a 2 SEBI-registered stockbroker and made payment through an account payee cheque. It was the submission that

PUJA AGARWAL,ROURKELA vs. ITO WARD 1, ROURKELA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.628/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Puja Agarwal, Vs Ito Ward-1, Rourkela O-18, Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan No. : Agwpa 5744 K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ayush Agarwal, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/02/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm :

condone the delay of 12 days in filing the appeal and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 3. At the outset, ld. AR submitted that the assessee purchased shares of Panchshul Marketing Ltd. from Overflow Merchyandise Pvt. Ltd. via a 2 SEBI-registered stockbroker and made payment through an account payee cheque. It was the submission that

PARADIP PORT AUTHORITY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

delay should be condoned. 5. Consequent upon the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa and after due consideration of the submission of the assessee, the total income of the assessee was computed as Rs.Nil after allowing the benefit of exemption u/s 11 of the Act for all the subject assessment years. Copy of the order dated

PARADIP PORT AUTHORITY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

delay should be condoned. 5. Consequent upon the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa and after due consideration of the submission of the assessee, the total income of the assessee was computed as Rs.Nil after allowing the benefit of exemption u/s 11 of the Act for all the subject assessment years. Copy of the order dated

PARADIP PORT AUTHORITY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

delay should be condoned. 5. Consequent upon the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa and after due consideration of the submission of the assessee, the total income of the assessee was computed as Rs.Nil after allowing the benefit of exemption u/s 11 of the Act for all the subject assessment years. Copy of the order dated

ASHOAK ACHARYA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ASSIATANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 5(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2011-12 Ashok Acharya, Irc Village, Ashok Acharya, Irc Village, Vs. Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar Income Tax, Circle 5(1), Income Tax, Circle 5(1), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Adcpa 6490 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Diganta Dash, Dash, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/0 05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/0 /05/2024

delay of 149 days in filing the appeal is condoned and disposed off on merits. 4. It was submitted by ld AR that the assesse is an individual who had derived long term capital gain

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

condone\nthe delay and admit the appeal for hearing.\n3. As the facts and circumstances are similar in ITA Nos. 179 &\n181/CTK/2020, hence, for brevity we will take ITA No.179/CTK/2020\nfor A.Y. 2009-10 and decide the issues accordingly.\nΑ.Υ. 2009-10\nITA No. 179/СТК/2020\n4. The first issue raised by the Revenue in ground

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

condone\nthe delay and admit the appeal for hearing.\n3. As the facts and circumstances are similar in ITA Nos. 179 &\n181/CTK/2020, hence, for brevity we will take ITA No.179/CTK/2020\nfor A.Y. 2009-10 and decide the issues accordingly.\nΑ.Υ. 2009-10\nITA No. 179/СТК/2020\n4. The first issue raised by the Revenue in ground

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

condone\nthe delay and admit the appeal for hearing.\n3. As the facts and circumstances are similar in ITA Nos. 179 &\n181/CTK/2020, hence, for brevity we will take ITA No.179/CTK/2020\nfor A.Y. 2009-10 and decide the issues accordingly.\nΑ.Υ. 2009-10\nITA No. 179/СТК/2020\n4. The first issue raised by the Revenue in ground

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

condone\nthe delay and admit the appeal for hearing.\n3. As the facts and circumstances are similar in ITA Nos. 179 &\n181/CTK/2020, hence, for brevity we will take ITA No.179/CTK/2020\nfor A.Y. 2009-10 and decide the issues accordingly.\nΑ.Υ. 2009-10\nITA No. 179/CTK/2020\n4. The first issue raised by the Revenue in ground

ABANI PATTANAYAK,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, BHUBANESWAR

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

delay of 218 days in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR at the time of hearing that the assessee has raised the following three grounds :- i) The ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the amount of Rs.2,58,160/- representing BWSSB deposit and KPTCL charges, totalling to Rs.2

ABHIMANYU SAHU,BUXIPALLI vs. PCIT-1,, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Abhimanyu Sahu, Buxipalli, Abhimanyu Sahu, Buxipalli, Vs. Pr. Cit-1, Gopalpur On Sea. Gopalpur On Sea. Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aokps 4011 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.N.Dave, Ca P.N.Dave, Ca Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 24 /0 03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 24 /0 /03/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Against The Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Act 263 Of The Act Of The Ld Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar-1 Dated Dated 10.3.2021 In Appeal No. Itba/Rev/ V/F/Rev5/2020-21/1031385941(1) For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Shri P.N.Dave, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri P.N.Dave, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri P.N.Dave, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Pr. Cit(Osd) Appeared For The Revenue. M.K.Gautam, Ld Pr. Cit(Osd) Appeared For The Revenue. M.K.Gautam, Ld Pr. Cit(Osd) Appeared For The Revenue.

condone the delay of 296 days in filing the appeal by the assessee and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. It was submitted by ld AR that the original assessment came to be completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 27.12.2018. The assessment was a ‘Limited Scrutiny assessment’ and in the assessment of ‘limited scrutiny’ the issue was whether contract

AKBARI CONTINENTAL PRIVATE LIMITED,CUTTACK vs. ITO,WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अपील संसंसंसं/Ita No.364/Ctk/2024 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) वष"

capital gain be viewed and decided similarly? The first question stands covered by a judgment of this Court delivered in Civil Appeal No.2833/2016 titled as Checkmate Services P.Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, on 12.10.2022. This appeal was dismissed along with four other appeals by a common judgment. The first question has been answered against the assessee

MRUTYUNJAY ROUT,BALASORE vs. ACIT,CIRCLE BALASORE, BALASORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember Assessment Year : 2017-18 Mrutyunjay Rout, Prop. M/S. Rout, Prop. M/S. Vs. Acit, Acit, Balasore Balasore Circle, Circle, Sopny Brothers, Bampada, Sopny Brothers, Bampada, Balasore Chhanpur, Balasore Chhanpur, Balasore Pan/Gir No. .Aavpr 0830 L (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Natabar Panda, Adv : Shri Natabar Panda, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr , Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/09/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/09/2 2024 O R D E R

capital gain be viewed and decided similarly? The first question stands covered by a judgment of this Court delivered in Civil Appeal No.2833/2016 titled as Checkmate Services P.Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, on 12.10.2022. This appeal was dismissed along with four other appeals by a common judgment. The first question has been answered against the assessee

GEETIRANJAN MOHANTY,KALYANI NAGAR, CUTTACK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK., CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2022-2023 2023 Geeti Ranjan Mohanty, At Geeti Ranjan Mohanty, At- Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Income Tax Officer, Ward- Kalyani Kalyani Nagar, Nagar, 1(1), Cuttack 1(1), Cuttack Madhupatana, Cuttack Madhupatana, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Abcpm 1532 G (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bal, Adv K.K.Bal, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 5/9/ /2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 5/9 /9/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

capital gain be viewed and decided similarly? The first question stands covered by a judgment of this Court delivered in Civil Appeal No.2833/2016 titled as Checkmate Services P.Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, on 12.10.2022. This appeal was dismissed along with four other appeals by a common judgment. The first question has been answered against the assessee

RANJEET KUMAR SETH,KULAD, KULAD NALCO NAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(1), BHUBANESWAR, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, RAJSWA VIHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2018-19 Ranjeet Kumar Seth, Kulad, Ranjeet Kumar Seth, Kulad, Vs. Dcit, Circle 4(1), Dcit, Circle 4(1), Nalco Nagar, Angul. Nalco Nagar, Angul. Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. No.Ahups 3052 M (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.C.Jena, Ca K.C.Jena, Ca Revenue By Ue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr & Shri & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/8 8/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/8 /8/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

capital gain be viewed and decided similarly? The first question stands covered by a judgment of this Court delivered in Civil Appeal No.2833/2016 titled as Checkmate Services P.Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, on 12.10.2022. This appeal was dismissed along with four other appeals by a common judgment. The first question has been answered against the assessee

STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ODISHA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARAD 5(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed and stay petition stands dismissed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwals.P.No.11/Ctk/2024 Assessment Year :2017-18 State Pollution Control Board State Pollution Control Board, Vs. Ito, Ward 5(2), Plot No.A-118, Paribesh Bhawan, 118, Paribesh Bhawan, Bhubaneswar Nilakantha Nagar, Agar, Nayapali, Nayapali, Unit-Vii, Bhubaneswar Neswar Pan/Gir No.Aaals 2490 J Aaals 2490 J (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agrawalla, Ca Walla, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/10/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/10/20 024 O R D E R Per Bench

capital gains, if any, from disposal of assets as per Government financial guideline and rules of Government of Maharashtra. The exemption in the CBDT notification dt. 29th March, 2016 is valid for financial years 2015-16 to 2018-19. Considering the facts that the assessee-Board is under complete superintendence, and control of the State Government financially as well

KENDRAPARA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,KENDRAPADA vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.163/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Kendrapara Urban Co-Operative Vs Pr.Cit, Cuttack Bank Ltd., College Square, Tinimuhani, Kendrapara-754211 Pan No. :Aaatk 8347 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.C.Sethi, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/01/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Pr.Cit, Cuttack, Dated 24.03.2020, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Com/F/17/2019-20/1026884702(1) For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 8 Days. The Assessee Through Its Secretary Has Filed An Application Dated 13.07.2020 Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons For Condonation Of Delay, To Which Ld. Cit-Dr Did Not Object. In View Of The Above, Delay Of 8 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Is Condoned & The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Heard Finally. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Original Assessment In The Case Of The Assessee Was Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 20.11.2017. It Was The Submission That The Assessment Was A Limited Scrutiny

delay of 8 days in filing the present appeal is condoned and the appeal of the assessee is heard finally. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the original assessment in the case of the assessee was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 20.11.2017. It was the submission that the assessment was a limited scrutiny 2 assessment