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 nos. 1

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 nos. 1

GRAM VIKAS TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, BERAMPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2014-

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

condone the delay in filing of Form 10 under section 119(2)(b) of the Act.” II. ITA No.437/CTK/2024; AY 2015-16: “Ground No. 1: The learned CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer have erred in rejecting the petition filed under section 154 on 10/12/2016 for rectifying the intimation under section 143(1)(a) for disallowing deduction claimed under section

GRAM VIKAS TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. ITO,EXEMPTION WARD, BERAMPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2014-

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

condone the delay in filing of Form 10 under section 119(2)(b) of the Act.” II. ITA No.437/CTK/2024; AY 2015-16: “Ground No. 1: The learned CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer have erred in rejecting the petition filed under section 154 on 10/12/2016 for rectifying the intimation under section 143(1)(a) for disallowing deduction claimed under section

HARE KRISHNA MOVEMENT PURI,BALAGANDI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), BHUBANESWAR

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

condoned the delay in filing Form 10B.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": ["Section 11", "Section 12", "Section 12A(1)(b)"], "issues

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

10B(8), within the time limit prescribed u/s 139(1) of Income tax Act and claim of carry forward losses. But the ratio of the aforesaid judgment is squarely applicable on the facts of the instant case as in para 11 of its judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “As per the settled position

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

1) of the Act, dated 29.12.2023. 1.1. The Registry has informed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 116 days. An application seeking 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

AABAHANA,CUTTACK vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD,, BERHAMPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Girish Agrawalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.225/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) Aabahana, Vs Ito, Exemption Ward, Berhampur At: Malyabanta, Nachuni, Khurda-752028 Pan No. :Aabta 9704 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ambika Prasad Mohanty, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Dr.Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2023 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 20.04.2023, Passed In Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1052225643(1), For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Original Return Of The Assessee Came To Be Filed On 27.09.2018 For The Relevant Assessment Year. In The Intimation U/S.143(1) Of The Act, The Exemption U/S.11 Of The Act Had Been Denied On The Ground That There Was Delay In Filing The Form 10B. The Assessee Had Filed Rectification Application U/S.154 Of The Act & The Cit(E), Hyderabad Had Condoned The Delay In Filing Of The Form 10B. The Rectification Application Had Been Allowed & The Assessee Was Granted The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.11 Of The Act. Subsequently, Another

Section 143(1) of the Act, has not been issued to the assessee. Thus, on this ground itself, the intimation issued u/s.143(1) of the Act is liable to be quashed and we do so. 5. Further, the fact that the ld. CIT(E) has condoned the delay in filing the Form 10B

NABA UTKAL TRUST,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, BHUBANESWAR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Am आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.268/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2021-2022) Naba Utkal Trust, Vs Ito, Exemption, Bhubaneswar Plot No.841, Keshab Complex, Cuttack Road, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No. : Aabtn 0126 D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ambika Prasad Mohanty, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order, Dated 28.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Addl./Jcit(A), Panaji, For The Assessment Year 2021-2022. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 60 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Therein That The Delay Of 60 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Is Due To Lack Of Knowledge About The Order Passed By The Ld.Pcit. Accordingly, The Assessee Prayed That The Delay Of 60 Days May Kindly Be Condoned & Appeal Of The Assessee May Kindly Be Admitted For Hearing. Ld. Sr. Dr Did Not Raise Any Objection To This Contention Of The Assessee For Condonation Of Delay. Accordingly, We Are Of The View That The Assessee

section 119(2) of the Act and decide on merits. However, while deciding the appeal of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee stating that the ld. CIT(A) has no power to condone the delay for late filing of Form 10B. 4. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee is in further appeal before

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

1. 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 without considering the CBDT Circular No.10/2019 dated 22nd May, 2019. Hence, we request condone the delay in filing Form 10B and set aside the order of the ld CIT(Exemptions

JEEVAN KALYANA SADHANA KENDRA,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, SAMBALPUR

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

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

1)(b) of the Act in Form No. 10B in the old format on 30/10/2023. Later on the assessee filed its return of income dated 30.10.2023 claiming exemption under section 11 of the Act and the Auditor filed the audit report in the new format in Form No. 10BB on 04/04/2024. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred

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

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

REGIONAL PLANT RESOURCE CENTRE,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2016-17 Regional Regional Plant Plant Resource Resource Vs. Ito, Ito, Exemption Exemption Ward, Ward, Centre, Centre, Rprc, Rprc, Nayapalli, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Irc Village, Bhubaneswar Irc Village, Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aabar 5992 A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.R.Pattnaik B.R.Pattnaik, Ca Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Sr Charan Dass, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/0 06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/0 /06/2024 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 Cti(A), Nfac, Delhi Cti(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 30.11.2022 In Appeal No. Cit( Cit(A), Bhuabenswar- 3/10003/2019 3/10003/2019-20 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Shri B.R.Pattnaik, B.R.Pattnaik, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri The Assessee & Shri Charan Dass, Ld Sr. Dr Appeared For The Revenue. Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

10B, the delay in filing of appeal before the Tribunal be condoned. After considering the condonation petition and arguments of both the sides, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Hence, we condone the delay of 339 days and admit the appeal for adjudication

DHANESWAR RATH INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND MEDICAL SCIENCES,CUTTACK vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

condone the delay of 198 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. The sole grievance raised in the grounds of appeal is that the CIT(Exemptions), Hyderabad has passed the revision order u/s.263 of the Act, in a hurriedly manner without providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 6. Facts of the case are that the assessee

INDIRA GANDHI INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Income Tax Officer, Exemption Indira Gandhi Institute Of Ward, Bhubaneswar, Pharmaceutical Sciences Pratyaksha Kar Bhawan, Third N-4/208 Nayapalli, Irc Village, Floor, Regional Telecom Trg Vs. Khorda, Odisha-751015 Centre, Vss Nagar Road, Bhubaneswar-751007 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaati7724B Assessee By : Shri Kc Jena, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.07.2025

1) dated 31.03.2024 for A.Y. 2018-19. 02. Shri KG Jena represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty represented on behalf of the Revenue. 03. The appeal of the assessee is time barred by 185 days. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that there is plausible reason to condone the delay

INSTITUTE OF HOTEL MANAGEMENT CATERING TECHNOLOGY AND APPLIED NUTRITION,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT CPC, BANGALUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2014-15 Institute Institute Of Of Hotel Hotel Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Dcit, Cpc, Management Management Catering Catering Bengaluru Bengaluru Technology Technology & And Applied Applied Nutrition, Plot No.4970, Verr Nutrition, Plot No.4970, Verr Surendra Surendra Sai Sai Nagar, Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. No.Aaati 5038 G (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

condone the delay in filing Form 10B. It was the submission that both Form 10B and 10BB contain the same information necessary for assessment and the intimation which has been issued denying the assessee exemption under section 11 on account of wrong filing of Form No.10BB in place of Form 10B was not a prima facie adjustment, which could