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.

delay in filing of the appeal stands condoned and the appeal is being disposed off on merits. 7. It was submitted by ld AR that there are three issues in the appeal. The first issue was against the action of the ld CIT(A) in confirming the estimation of the profit at 8% by the Assessing Officer as against

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

JAMUNA REALTY PVT. LTD. ,CUTTACK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed with the direction to the AO herein given above

business income. Therefore, Pr. CIT was also right in picking up second issue i.e. interest income for invoking revisionary powers against the assessee u/s.263 of the Act. Ld CIT DR submitted that on the interest income, the department was entitled to collect tax in assessment year 2015-16, which was received after one year i.e. in the assessment year

JM MINING AND TRADING PVT. LTD.,TULSIPUR, CUTTACK vs. A.C.I.T, CIRCLE-2(1), CUTTACK, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, SHELTER CHOWK, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.36 & 37/Ctk/2024 24 Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011 11 & 2011-12 Jm Mining & Trading Pvt Jm Mining & Trading Pvt Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-2(1), Ltd., Ltd., At At-Madhusudan Cuttack Avenue, Tulsipur, Cuttack Avenue, Tulsipur, Cuttack Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aabcj 2946 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, Sandeep Kumar Jena, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/0 07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/0 /07/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

business. 2. That the assessments for the assessment years from the A/Y-2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 in the case of Mr. S.N Dasmohapatra were reopened u/s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(Act) by the Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Cuttack who is the jurisdictional assessing officer in short

JM MINING AND TRADING PVT. LTD,TULSIPUR, CUTTACK vs. A.C.I.T CIRCLE2(1), CUTTACK CIRCLE, CUTTACK, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, SHELTER CHOWK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.36 & 37/Ctk/2024 24 Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011 11 & 2011-12 Jm Mining & Trading Pvt Jm Mining & Trading Pvt Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-2(1), Ltd., Ltd., At At-Madhusudan Cuttack Avenue, Tulsipur, Cuttack Avenue, Tulsipur, Cuttack Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aabcj 2946 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, Sandeep Kumar Jena, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/0 07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/0 /07/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

business. 2. That the assessments for the assessment years from the A/Y-2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 in the case of Mr. S.N Dasmohapatra were reopened u/s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(Act) by the Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Cuttack who is the jurisdictional assessing officer in short

SIBASANKAR SAHU,- DEOGARH vs. PCIT, , SAMBALPUR.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.217/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Sibasankar Sahu, Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur Arnapurna Store, At: Bania Sahi, Po/Ps: Deogarh Dist-Deogarh-768108 Pan No. :Apeps 1706 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, Dated 18.03.2022, Passed In Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021-22/1041011837(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 199 Days. It Was The Submission That The Delay Was On Account Of Medical Treatment Of The Assessee’S Father & Assessee’S Wife. It Was The Submission That The Assessee Is An Individual Engaged In Trading Of Potatoes, Onion & Garlic In The Remote Area Of The District Of Deogarh, Odisha. It Was The Submission That The Assessee Was Not Well- Versed In Taxation Issues & On Account Of The Medical Treatment Of The 2 Assessee’S Father As Also The Assessee’S Wife, The Assessee Could Not File

delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is disposed off on merits. 3. On merits, it was the submission that the ld. AR that the original assessment order in the case of the assessee came to be completed u/s.144 of the Act on 30.12.2019, wherein the AO had estimated the income of the assessee

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

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

condonation of delay for not filing of its return of income within the statutory time limit, before the CBDT u/s 119(2)(b) of Income Tax Act, which has expressed provision for admission of claim of any exemption after the expiry of the period specified in the Income Tax Act. 2.4.2 In view of the above, it is humbly submitted

RABINDRANATH MOHANTY,JAGATPUR vs. PR.CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.20/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2016-2017) Rabindranath Mohanty, Vs Pr.Cit, Bhubaneswar-1 Gopabandhu Nagar, Jagatpur, Cuttack Pan No. :Afcpm 0063 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

condone the delay in filing the present appeal and the appeal is heard finally. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee is a manufacturer of polythene products and in truck running business. The return filed by 2 the assessee came to be taken up for limited scrutiny to examine “whether the cash in hand shown

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

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, 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

PRAMOD KUMAR SAHOO,KEONJHAR vs. ITO,KEONJHAR WARD, , KEONJHAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Ld. Ao There Was Absolutely No Response To Notices Fixing The Dates For Hearing After The Proceedings Had Been Initiated U/S 147 Of The Act. Thereafter, The Ld. Ao Proceeded To Add Rs. 12,00,000/- On Account Of Expenditure From Unknown Sources Incurred In The Marriage Ceremony Of The Assesses Daughter.

Income Tax (Appeals), Addl./JCIT(A)-11, Mumbai [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”] vide order dated 07.01.2025 for AY 2011-12, against the order passed by the Ld. AO. It is seen that before the Ld. AO there was absolutely no response to notices fixing the dates for hearing after the proceedings had been initiated

KALAVIKAS KENDRA,CUTTACK vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, CUTTACK

In the result, both appeals of the assessed are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.265 & 266/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017 & 2020-2021) Kalavikas Kendra, Vs Ito(Exemption), Cuttack At : Kvk Building, Kvk Marg Buxibazar, Cuttack-753001 Pan No. : Aaatk 3918 R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/08/2025

condonation of delay in filing Form 10B of the Act. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. When the assessee has not complied with the requirement of the Act being not filed Form 10B of the Act if an intimation u/s.143(1) is to be issued, then obviously the income of the assessee would be treated as business

KALAVIKAS KENDRA,CUTTACK vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, CUTTACK

In the result, both appeals of the assessed are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.265 & 266/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017 & 2020-2021) Kalavikas Kendra, Vs Ito(Exemption), Cuttack At : Kvk Building, Kvk Marg Buxibazar, Cuttack-753001 Pan No. : Aaatk 3918 R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/08/2025

condonation of delay in filing Form 10B of the Act. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. When the assessee has not complied with the requirement of the Act being not filed Form 10B of the Act if an intimation u/s.143(1) is to be issued, then obviously the income of the assessee would be treated as business

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

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasatyasai Mines & Minerals Limited, I.T.O. At Plot No. N-5/274, Irc Village, Ward 1(4), Vs. Nayapalli, Khurda, Bhubaneshwar. Bhubaneshwar-751015 (Odisha) Pan No. Aahcs 4827 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Satyasai Mines & Minerals Limited, I.T.O. At Plot No. N-5/274, IRC Village, Ward 1(4), Vs. Nayapalli, Khurda, Bhubaneshwar. Bhubaneshwar-751015 (Odisha) PAN No. AAHCS 4827 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by Shri P.K. Mishra and Shri Narahari