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

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

1)(a). d. Prior to AY 2016-17 delay in filing of Form 10 could not lead to disallowance under section 11(2) and it was permissible to file Form 10 any time before the completion of assessment and the assessee was entitled to show cause an opportunity before any such disallowance. e. The Supreme Court and various other High

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

1)(a). d. Prior to AY 2016-17 delay in filing of Form 10 could not lead to disallowance under section 11(2) and it was permissible to file Form 10 any time before the completion of assessment and the assessee was entitled to show cause an opportunity before any such disallowance. e. The Supreme Court and various other High

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

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

D E R आदेश आदेश 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 06.06.2024, passed in appeal No.NFAC/2017-18/10047064 vide DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065429730(1) for the assessment year 2018-2019, on the following grounds of appeal :- 1. That the Appellant craves leave

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)

D E R Per George Mathan, JM George Mathan, JM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order u/s.263 of the Act passed by the Act passed by the ld Pr. CIT, Bhubaneswar-1 dated

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

D E R Per Bench: The above captioned appeals filed at the instance of different assessees, are directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, dated 29.11.2017 for the assessment years 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. 2. At the outset, on perusal of the record, we found that all the appeals of the assessees are barred by limitation

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

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

D E R Per Bench: The above captioned appeals filed at the instance of different assessees, are directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, dated 29.11.2017 for the assessment years 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. 2. At the outset, on perusal of the record, we found that all the appeals of the assessees are barred by limitation

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

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

D E R Per Bench: The above captioned appeals filed at the instance of different assessees, are directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, dated 29.11.2017 for the assessment years 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. 2. At the outset, on perusal of the record, we found that all the appeals of the assessees are barred by limitation

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

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

D E R Per Bench: The above captioned appeals filed at the instance of different assessees, are directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, dated 29.11.2017 for the assessment years 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. 2. At the outset, on perusal of the record, we found that all the appeals of the assessees are barred by limitation

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

D E R Per Bench: The above captioned appeals filed at the instance of different assessees, are directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, dated 29.11.2017 for the assessment years 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. 2. At the outset, on perusal of the record, we found that all the appeals of the assessees are barred by limitation

RAVI METALLICS LIMITED,ROURKELA vs. PR.CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaravi Metallics Limited, I/10, Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan No.Adqps 4031 G ………………Assessee Versus Pr.Cit, Sambalpur ………………..Revenue Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ar For The Assessee Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr For The Revenue Date Of Hearing : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, Passed U/S.263 Of The Act In Case No.Pcit/Sbp/263/26/2018-19, Dated 29.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. Heard On The Question Of Condonation Of Delay 2. On Perusal Of The Record, We Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 686 Days. In This Regard, Ld. Ar Filed An Application Along With Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay, Wherein It Has Been Submitted That The Delay Occurred In Filing The Present Appeal Is Neither Intentional Nor Deliberate But Due To Unfortunate & Unavoidable Circumstances Beyond

1. There is a delay of 315 days in filing of present appeal. The revision order u/s.263 was received by the appellant on 05.04.2019 and as such the appeal was required to be filed on 04.06.2019. The appeal was filed on 20th April, 2021 resulting in a delay of 315 days. In the application for condonation of delay

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,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

RONALD 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

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