KAPILDEV DUBEY,MAYURBHANJ vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2,BARIPADA, MAYURBHANJ

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merit. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual and was engaged in retail trading of cloth and petrol pump. The return of income for the Assessment year 2017-18 was e-filed on 15.11.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 8,53,890/-. Subsequently

PASUPATI FEEDS,CUTTACK vs. PRINCIPAL CIT(CENTRAL), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-2011 are allowed and that the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Manish Borad & Manish Borad & Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos.45 To 47/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2018 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010 09 To 2010-2011 Acit, Central Circle, Acit, Central Circle, Vs. M/S. Pasupati Feeds, Kota Sahi, M/S. Pasupati Feeds, Kota Sahi, Cuttack Tangi, Cuttack Tangi, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aaefp 4117 F (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) C.O.Nos.33 To 35/Ctk/2018 C.O.Nos.33 To 35/Ctk/2018 (Arising Out Of It (Arising Out Of It(Ss)A Nos.45 To 47/Ctk/2018) A Nos.45 To 47/Ctk/2018) Assessment Years: 2008 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010 09 To 2010-2011

income for A.Yrs. 2008-09 to 2013-14 on 7.11.2014. The case of the assessee is that the return for A.Y. 2012-13 was filed on 7.11.2012. As per section 143(2) of the Act, the last date on which notice for assessment would have been issued was 30.9.2013. All the other returns are filed on earliest date

PASUPATI FEEDS,CUTTACK vs. PRINCIPAL CIT(CENTRAL), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-2011 are allowed and that the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Manish Borad & Manish Borad & Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos.45 To 47/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2018 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010 09 To 2010-2011 Acit, Central Circle, Acit, Central Circle, Vs. M/S. Pasupati Feeds, Kota Sahi, M/S. Pasupati Feeds, Kota Sahi, Cuttack Tangi, Cuttack Tangi, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aaefp 4117 F (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) C.O.Nos.33 To 35/Ctk/2018 C.O.Nos.33 To 35/Ctk/2018 (Arising Out Of It (Arising Out Of It(Ss)A Nos.45 To 47/Ctk/2018) A Nos.45 To 47/Ctk/2018) Assessment Years: 2008 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010 09 To 2010-2011

income for A.Yrs. 2008-09 to 2013-14 on 7.11.2014. The case of the assessee is that the return for A.Y. 2012-13 was filed on 7.11.2012. As per section 143(2) of the Act, the last date on which notice for assessment would have been issued was 30.9.2013. All the other returns are filed on earliest date

SUJATA NAYAK,RAYAGADA vs. ITO, RAYAGADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2010-2011 2011 Smt.Sujata Sujata Nayak Nayak, W/O. Vs. Ito, Ito, Rayagada Rayagada Ward, Ward, Shri Lokanath Nayak, Omp Shri Lokanath Nayak, Omp Rayagada Road, Indira Nagar, 6Th Lane, Road, Indira Nagar, 6 Po;Dist: Rayagada Po;Dist: Rayagada Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Addpn 2024 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Archita Nayak, Ar : Ms Archita Nayak, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/01 01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/01 /01/2023 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), Berhampur, In Appeal No.0055/13 , Berhampur, In Appeal No.0055/13-14 Dated Dated 31.7.2014 For The Assessment Year Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. Ms Archita Nayak, Ms Archita Nayak, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue. S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

income Tax Act. one of the considerations for this decision : period of delay [perfect circle India Ltd' v. ACIT (2020) 120 taxmann.com 262 (Bom) following cenzure industries Ltd' v. rro (Notice of Motion No.492 and 493 of 2015 dt.15.1.2016 (Bom). The fact about the delay period in the present case is more than 7 years and 9 months' The issue

MR. NARENDRA KUMA RBAL,KEONJHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KEONJHAR WARD, KEONJHAR

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “A. For that, the order of the forums below are illegal absurd, improper and excessive in the facts and circumstances of the case, hence the orders passed are liable to be deleted. B. For that

TAPAN KUMAR SETHY,CUTTACK vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), CUTTACK

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

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 Tapan Kumar Sethy Vs. Ito, Ward-2(4), Purighat Road, Telenga Bazar , Cuttack Cuttack- 753009 Pan/Gir No. Blzps 1048 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudhanshu Kr Das, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prateek Kr Mishra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02 /07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02 /07/2025 O R D E R Per Bench The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nafc), New Delhi Nfac), Delhi Dated 15/06/2022 In Appeal No.Cit(A), Cuttack/10917/2019-20 Passed For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 952 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Dated 7.4.2025 Supported With Affidavit Stating The Reasons That Due To Serious Illness Of The Assessee’S Mother & Change Of P A G E 1 | 5 Assessment Year : 2017-18

Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NAFC), New Delhi NFAC), Delhi dated 15/06/2022 in Appeal No.CIT(A), Cuttack/10917/2019-20 passed for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The appeal is time barred by 952 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition dated 7.4.2025 supported with affidavit stating the reasons that due to serious illness of the assessee’s mother and change

M/S. PRAMOD KUMAR ROUT,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, all the appeals of the all the assessees are allowed

condone the delay of 525 days in filing all the present appeals before the Tribunal and admit all the appeals for adjudication. 4. The sole issue raised in all the appeals is against the levy of penalty u/s.271AAB of the Act by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). 5. The AO in case of all the assessees under

M/S. PRAKASH KUMAR ROUT,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, all the appeals of the all the assessees are allowed

condone the delay of 525 days in filing all the present appeals before the Tribunal and admit all the appeals for adjudication. 4. The sole issue raised in all the appeals is against the levy of penalty u/s.271AAB of the Act by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). 5. The AO in case of all the assessees under

M/S. PRAKASH KUMAR ROUT,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, all the appeals of the all the assessees are allowed

condone the delay of 525 days in filing all the present appeals before the Tribunal and admit all the appeals for adjudication. 4. The sole issue raised in all the appeals is against the levy of penalty u/s.271AAB of the Act by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). 5. The AO in case of all the assessees under

M/S. PRAGATI MILK PRODUCT PVT. LTD.,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, all the appeals of the all the assessees are allowed

condone the delay of 525 days in filing all the present appeals before the Tribunal and admit all the appeals for adjudication. 4. The sole issue raised in all the appeals is against the levy of penalty u/s.271AAB of the Act by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). 5. The AO in case of all the assessees under

M/S. PASUPATI BREEDING FARM PVT. LTD.,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, all the appeals of the all the assessees are allowed

condone the delay of 525 days in filing all the present appeals before the Tribunal and admit all the appeals for adjudication. 4. The sole issue raised in all the appeals is against the levy of penalty u/s.271AAB of the Act by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). 5. The AO in case of all the assessees under

ARYA AGRI & AQUA PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both appeals of the assesee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwal

condone the respective delay in filing both the appeals and appeals are heard finally. 3. First, we shall take up the appeal of the assesee in ITA No.461/CTK/2024 for A.Y.2016-2017, wherein the assesee has raised the following grounds :- 1. That the impugned Appellate Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Income Tax Department, Govt

ARYA AGRI & AQUA PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both appeals of the assesee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwal

condone the respective delay in filing both the appeals and appeals are heard finally. 3. First, we shall take up the appeal of the assesee in ITA No.461/CTK/2024 for A.Y.2016-2017, wherein the assesee has raised the following grounds :- 1. That the impugned Appellate Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Income Tax Department, Govt

ITO,WARD-1(1), CUTTACK vs. THE CUTTACK CREDIT CO-OP. SOCEITY LTD, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

delay of 111 days in filing the appeal by the revenue is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4. The revenue is aggrieved by the order of the ld CIT(A) in deleting addition of Rs.1,58,80,813/- from interest on fixed deposits made in the co-operative banks u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i)/80P

BHAVENDRA HASMUKHLAL PATADIA. LEGAL HEIR OF HASMUKHLAL PATADIA.,CUTTACK vs. ITO WARD-!(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.125/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Bhavendra Hasmukhlal Patadia, Vs Ito, Ward-1(1), Cuttack Legal Heir Of Hasmukhlal Patadia, Nayabazar, Chauliaganj, Cuttack-753004 Pan No. :Adapp 6256 G (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26/12/2022 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, Passed In Itba/Com/F/17/2019-20/1026790827(1), Dated 19.03.2020, For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. Head On The Question Of Condonation Of Delay 2. On Perusal Of The Appeal Record, It Is Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 784 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Dated 11.07.2022 Along With Affidavit Stating Therein That Due To Continuous Lockdown On Account Of Spread Of Covid-19, The Assessee Could Not File The Present Appeal In Time, Therefore, He Prayed That Delay Of 784 Days In Filing The Present Appeal May Kindly Be Condoned. On The Other Hand, Ld. Cit-Dr Did Not Object To The Above Submission Of The Ld. Ar. Considering The Above, We Condone

condone 2 the delay of 784 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee and appeal is heard finally. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee is an individual, who derives income from letting out of house property and income from share transaction. The assessee had filed its return of income

SHRI PADMA LOCHAN PANDA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO,WARD-1(2),, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shrichandra Mohan Garg, Judicialassessment Year : 1999-2000 Sri Padma Lochan Panda, C Lochan Panda, C- Vs. Ito, Ward-1(2), 77/3, Palaspali, Bhubaneswar. 77/3, Palaspali, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Agkpp 4821 C Agkpp 4821 C (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/4/ 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/5/20 /2021 O R D E R

condone the delay of 5207 days in filing the appeal and admit for adjudication. Ground Nos.1 to 4 of appeal 6. Facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs.62,820.00 and agricultural income at Rs.1,00,000.00. The return was processed U/s.143(1)(a) of the I.T Act, 1961. Thereafter

BARUAN SERVICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAJPUR WARD, JAJPUR, JAJPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical\npurposes

condone the delay of 1 days and admit the\nappeal for hearing.\n3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an AOP filed his return\nof income for A.Y. 2019-20. The case was reopened u/s.147 of the Act and\nnotice u/s.148 of the Act was issued to the assessee requiring to file the\nreturn of income

DCIT,CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. RADHIKAPUR (WEST) COAL MINING (P) LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

delay of 417 days in filing the appeal by the revenue is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4. The revenue is aggrieved by the deletion of addition made by the AO amounting to Rs.1,69,25,714/- representing interest on fixed deposits. 5. Facts of the case are that the assessee is a joint venture (JV) company