ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. DCIT, BERHAMPUR CIRCLE, BERHAMPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condoned so as to make way for the cause of substantial justice. We accordingly hold that assessee’s impugned delay (supra) is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to circumstances beyond its control. Cases are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 4. We advert to the sole identical issue of section 10(23C)(vi) approval raised in assessee

ROLAND INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condoned so as to make way for the cause of substantial justice. We accordingly hold that assessee’s impugned delay (supra) is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to circumstances beyond its control. Cases are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 4. We advert to the sole identical issue of section 10(23C)(vi) approval raised in assessee

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condoned so as to make way for the cause of substantial justice. We accordingly hold that assessee’s impugned delay (supra) is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to circumstances beyond its control. Cases are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 4. We advert to the sole identical issue of section 10(23C)(vi) approval raised in assessee

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condoned so as to make way for the cause of substantial justice. We accordingly hold that assessee’s impugned delay (supra) is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to circumstances beyond its control. Cases are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 4. We advert to the sole identical issue of section 10(23C)(vi) approval raised in assessee

ROLAND INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condoned so as to make way for the cause of substantial justice. We accordingly hold that assessee’s impugned delay (supra) is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to circumstances beyond its control. Cases are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 4. We advert to the sole identical issue of section 10(23C)(vi) approval raised in assessee

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. DCIT, BERHAMPUR CIRCLE, BERHAMPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condoned so as to make way for the cause of substantial justice. We accordingly hold that assessee’s impugned delay (supra) is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to circumstances beyond its control. Cases are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 4. We advert to the sole identical issue of section 10(23C)(vi) approval raised in assessee

ROLAND INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condoned so as to make way for the cause of substantial justice. We accordingly hold that assessee’s impugned delay (supra) is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to circumstances beyond its control. Cases are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 4. We advert to the sole identical issue of section 10(23C)(vi) approval raised in assessee

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. DCIT, BERHAMPUR CIRCLE, BERHAMPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condoned so as to make way for the cause of substantial justice. We accordingly hold that assessee’s impugned delay (supra) is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to circumstances beyond its control. Cases are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 4. We advert to the sole identical issue of section 10(23C)(vi) approval raised in assessee

ROLAND INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condoned so as to make way for the cause of substantial justice. We accordingly hold that assessee’s impugned delay (supra) is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to circumstances beyond its control. Cases are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 4. We advert to the sole identical issue of section 10(23C)(vi) approval raised in assessee

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condoned so as to make way for the cause of substantial justice. We accordingly hold that assessee’s impugned delay (supra) is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to circumstances beyond its control. Cases are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 4. We advert to the sole identical issue of section 10(23C)(vi) approval raised in assessee

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condoned so as to make way for the cause of substantial justice. We accordingly hold that assessee’s impugned delay (supra) is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to circumstances beyond its control. Cases are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 4. We advert to the sole identical issue of section 10(23C)(vi) approval raised in assessee

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condoned so as to make way for the cause of substantial justice. We accordingly hold that assessee’s impugned delay (supra) is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to circumstances beyond its control. Cases are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 4. We advert to the sole identical issue of section 10(23C)(vi) approval raised in 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

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

LALIT KUMAR JALAN,JALAN PHARMACEUTICALS vs. ITO WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed with the directions

10 11. Now the next issue came up for our consideration is with regard to the limitation in submitting the report by valuation officer to the AO. For this before taking resort to the provisions of General Clauses Act or Limitation Act, we have to examine whether any time limit is provided under any other section of Income

ODISHA INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION(IDCO),BHUBANESWAR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.365/Ctk/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) M/S Odisha Industrial Infrastructure Vs Dcit, Circle-4(1), Bhubaneswar Development Corporation, Idco Tower, Janpath, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaaat 2619 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Bibekananda Mohanty, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12/11/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/11/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 25.05.2023, Passed In Appeal No.Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2/10971/2017-18 Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1053183739(1) For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. On Perusal Of The Appeal Record, We Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Has Been Filed Belatedly By 409 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Application Along With Affidavit Stating Sufficient Reasons For Delay In Filing The Present Appeal. The Contents Of The Affidavit Filed By The Assessee Are As Under :-

delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned and the appeal is heard finally. 5. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :- 1. That, the assessment order U/s 143(3) read with 144B and U/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is against law, weight of evidences and probabilities of the case. 2. The appellant being

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. SRB CONSULTANCY PVT. LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-2011

condone the delay of 29 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for hearing. 23. Ground No.1 of the appeal is general in nature and hence, requires no separate adjudication by us. 24. In Ground No.2 of the appeal, the grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance

BHUBANESWAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,BHUBANESWAR vs. CIT, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadalebhubaneswar Development Vs. Cit, Bhubaneswar. Authority, Akash Shova Building, Sachivalaya Marg, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Aaalb 0073 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

condonation of delay. On this ground, the petition of the assessee is also being rejected for the same is beyond the purview of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. Vide the same petition dt. 06.12.2012, the applicant cited the objects as envisaged u/s 77 of the ODA Act, 1982 and also a brief account of its activities so far conducted

KARANI DAN CHANDAK,JAJPUR ROAD vs. AO, NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri R.K.Pandaassessment Year : 2017-18 Karani Dan Chandak, Prop. M/S. Vs. Addl.Joint/Dy.Asst.Commssioner Chandan Zarda Store, Jajpur Of Income Tax, Nfac, Delhi Road, Jajpur Pan/Gir No.Aeppc 8155 H (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C.Bhadra, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/05/2024 O R D E R Per R.K.Panda

section 151 of the Act.” 5. Accordingly notices were issued to the assessee to which the assessee responded to the same and furnished the submission on various dates. After considering the submission of the assessee, the AO made addition of Rs.3,02,93,425/- by stating as under:- 3. Addition u/s.69A of the Act:. 3.1. In this case