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

section 139(4C)(g) of Income Tax Act. P a g e 18 | 44 S.P.No.11/CTK/2024 ITA N o.301/CTK /2024 Assessment Year :2017-18 (c) If the appellant had bonafide reasons for not filing its return of income within the statutory time limit, the appellant could have filed application for condonation of delay for not filing of its return

SAINT XAVIER EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO(EXEMPTION) WARD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.405 & 406 /Ctk/2024 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2021-202 2022 Saint Xavier Educational & Saint Xavier Educational & Vs. Ito (Exemption) Ito (Exemption) Charitable Trust, Plot No.12, Charitable Trust, Plot No.12, Ward, Bhubaneswar Ward, Bhubaneswar Janapath, , Satyanagar, Satyanagar, Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. No.Aaits 4367 A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

delay is the period during which the country went through Covid. Admittedly, this was a period after effect of Covid had also hit the country. 8. The next principle is in regard to the interpretation of Section 3 and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to which, we would not try to apply the facts in the present case

SAINT XAVIER EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO(EXEMPTION) WARD,, BHUANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.405 & 406 /Ctk/2024 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2021-202 2022 Saint Xavier Educational & Saint Xavier Educational & Vs. Ito (Exemption) Ito (Exemption) Charitable Trust, Plot No.12, Charitable Trust, Plot No.12, Ward, Bhubaneswar Ward, Bhubaneswar Janapath, , Satyanagar, Satyanagar, Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. No.Aaits 4367 A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

delay is the period during which the country went through Covid. Admittedly, this was a period after effect of Covid had also hit the country. 8. The next principle is in regard to the interpretation of Section 3 and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to which, we would not try to apply the facts in the present case

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

SHREE PRASAD JEWELLERS,ROURKELA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ROURKELA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.177/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Shree Prasad Jewellers, Vs Ito, Ward-1, Rourkela Sai Bihar, Sundargarh-770001 Pan No. :Abgfs 9081 E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agarwalla, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 18.09.2025 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. At The Outset, We Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Delayed By 10 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Of Application Along With Affidavit Stating Sufficient Reasons For Condonation Of Delay, Which Are Not Found To Be False. Ld. Sr. Dr Did Not Object To Condone The Delay. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay Of 10 Days Delay & Proceed To Dispose Off The Appeal. 3. The Ld. Ar During The Course Of Hearing Submitted A Chart Stating Therein The Surviving Period Of Notice Issued U/S.148 Of The Act & Submitted That As Per The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case

condone the delay of 10 days delay and proceed to dispose off the appeal. 3. The ld. AR during the course of hearing submitted a chart stating therein the surviving period of notice issued u/s.148 of the Act and submitted that as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case 2 of Ashish Agarwal, reported

WOMEN ORGANISATION FOR SOCIO CULTURAL AWARNESS,KEONJHAR vs. ITO,EXEMPTIONS, CUTTACK

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as under: “01 That this application arises out of the Income Tax Appeal filed by the assessee causing a delay of 120 days in filing the appeal. 02. That the Petitioner is an Income Tax assessee. It filed the Audit Report in Form No. 10B for the financial year

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

SULTAN ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD,,SUNDARPADA, BHUBANESWAR vs. PR. CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Ramit Kocharassessment Year : 2015-16 Sultan Enterprises Pvt Ltd., Sultan Enterprises Pvt Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar-1 At:Plot No.161, Azad Nagar, At:Plot No.161, Azad Nagar, Sundarpada, Bhubaneswar. Sundarpada, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aascs 1016 R (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

condone the delay . It is already conceded by ld. Sr. Advocate representing assessee that the assessee does not have any case on the merits of the issue raised by ld. PCIT in his revisionary order dated 18.03.2021 passed u/s 263 of the 1961 Act. The only surving issue before me is the limitation for invoking the provisions of Section

STATE INSTITUTE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF ARTS AND CRAFTS,BHUBANESWAR vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Girish Agrawalwalassessment Year : 2016-17 State State Institute Institute For For Vs. Cit (Exemptions) Cit (Exemptions) Development Of Arts & Development Of Arts & Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Crafts, Handicarft Complex, Crafts, Handicarft Complex, Gandamunda, Bhubaneswar. Gandamunda, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaets 9430 Q (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nihar Ranjan Biswal, Ca Nihar Ranjan Biswal, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 21/07 7/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/0 /07/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

10 and set aside the order of the CIT(Exemptions). 3. For that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld CIT(E) has erred in law for not condoning the delay in filing the Form 10B when the same is a procedural lapses and filed before the completion of assessment. Hence, we request to condone the delay

ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

10. In reply, ld CIT DR submitted that the ld CIT(A) has considered various judicial pronouncements on the issue of delay condonation in the respective appeals and has dismissed the appeals in limine. Ld CIT DR also submitted that the assessee has not shown sufficient cause in support of the delay in filing the appeals, therefore, no interference

ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

10. In reply, ld CIT DR submitted that the ld CIT(A) has considered various judicial pronouncements on the issue of delay condonation in the respective appeals and has dismissed the appeals in limine. Ld CIT DR also submitted that the assessee has not shown sufficient cause in support of the delay in filing the appeals, therefore, no interference

ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

10. In reply, ld CIT DR submitted that the ld CIT(A) has considered various judicial pronouncements on the issue of delay condonation in the respective appeals and has dismissed the appeals in limine. Ld CIT DR also submitted that the assessee has not shown sufficient cause in support of the delay in filing the appeals, therefore, no interference

ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

10. In reply, ld CIT DR submitted that the ld CIT(A) has considered various judicial pronouncements on the issue of delay condonation in the respective appeals and has dismissed the appeals in limine. Ld CIT DR also submitted that the assessee has not shown sufficient cause in support of the delay in filing the appeals, therefore, no interference

ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), , BHUBANEWSWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

10. In reply, ld CIT DR submitted that the ld CIT(A) has considered various judicial pronouncements on the issue of delay condonation in the respective appeals and has dismissed the appeals in limine. Ld CIT DR also submitted that the assessee has not shown sufficient cause in support of the delay in filing the appeals, therefore, no interference

ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

10. In reply, ld CIT DR submitted that the ld CIT(A) has considered various judicial pronouncements on the issue of delay condonation in the respective appeals and has dismissed the appeals in limine. Ld CIT DR also submitted that the assessee has not shown sufficient cause in support of the delay in filing the appeals, therefore, no interference

ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

10. In reply, ld CIT DR submitted that the ld CIT(A) has considered various judicial pronouncements on the issue of delay condonation in the respective appeals and has dismissed the appeals in limine. Ld CIT DR also submitted that the assessee has not shown sufficient cause in support of the delay in filing the appeals, therefore, no interference

ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

10. In reply, ld CIT DR submitted that the ld CIT(A) has considered various judicial pronouncements on the issue of delay condonation in the respective appeals and has dismissed the appeals in limine. Ld CIT DR also submitted that the assessee has not shown sufficient cause in support of the delay in filing the appeals, therefore, no interference

KAMYAB TELEVISION (P) LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.536 & 537/Ctk/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2017-18 Assessment Year 18 Kamyab Television Pvt. Ltd., Plot Kamyab Television Pvt. Ltd., Plot Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Dcit, Corporate Circle No.159, Alaka Unit No.159, Alaka Unit-Ii, Ashok Bhubaneswar Nagar, Bhubaneswar Nagar, Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No Aaecm 3608 B Aaecm 3608 B (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Adv , Adv Revenue By : Shri : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, Cit Dr & S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 31/12/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/12/20 024

delay in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned. 10. We find that for the assessment year 2013-14, as the assessee has failed to produce books of account and bills & vouchers, ld CIT(A) has restricted the disallowance to 50% of the total claim made by the assessee in respect of provision of section