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.” 3. We will first take up the appeal in ITA No. 436/CTK/2024. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income which was processed u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act by the CPC in which the claim

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

condone the delay of 525 days in filing all the present appeals before the Tribunal and admit all the appeals for adjudication. 4. The sole issue raised in all the appeals is against the levy of penalty u/s.271AAB of the Act by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). 5. The AO in case of all the assessees under

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

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

condone the delay of 525 days in filing all the present appeals before the Tribunal and admit all the appeals for adjudication. 4. The sole issue raised in all the appeals is against the levy of penalty u/s.271AAB of the Act by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). 5. The AO in case of all the assessees under

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

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

condone the delay of 525 days in filing all the present appeals before the Tribunal and admit all the appeals for adjudication. 4. The sole issue raised in all the appeals is against the levy of penalty u/s.271AAB of the Act by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). 5. The AO in case of all the assessees under

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

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

condone the delay of 525 days in filing all the present appeals before the Tribunal and admit all the appeals for adjudication. 4. The sole issue raised in all the appeals is against the levy of penalty u/s.271AAB of the Act by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). 5. The AO in case of all the assessees under

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

condone the delay of 525 days in filing all the present appeals before the Tribunal and admit all the appeals for adjudication. 4. The sole issue raised in all the appeals is against the levy of penalty u/s.271AAB of the Act by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). 5. The AO in case of all the assessees under

DEOKARAN DAS RAMBILASH,SUNDARGARH vs. ITA, WARD-04, , ROURKELA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicialassessment Year : 2010-2011 Deokaran Das Deokaran Das Rambilash, Old Vs. Ito, Ward -4, Station Road, Rourkela. Station Road, Rourkela. Rourkela. Pan/Gir No.Aadfd 9708 K Aadfd 9708 K (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agarwalla, Ar Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Dr Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/05/ 2021 1 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/06/20 /2021 O R D E R

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 5. Ld A.R. of the assessee did not press Ground No.1 of appeal. Therefore, this ground is dismissed as not pressed. P a g e 2 | 9 Assessment Year : 2010-2011 6. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee firm was engaged in the business of trading

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

INDIRA GANDHI INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,SARANGA vs. ITO,EXEMPTION,BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2015-16 Indira Gandhi Institute Of Indira Gandhi Institute Of Vs. Ito, Ito, Exemption, Exemption, Technology, Technology, Saranga, Saranga, Bhubaneswar. Kamakhya Kamakhya Nagar, Nagar, Dist: Dhenkanal-759146 759146 Pan/Gir No. No.Aaati 5050 J (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Natabar Panda, Adv Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/01/20 2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/01/20 025 O R D E R Per Bench

condone the delay of 4 days and the appeal is admitted for hearing on merits. 4. It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee is a registered society, which is imparting technical education and research facilities to its students having no motive to earn profit. It is fully owned and substantially financed by the Government of Odisha and Government

ORISSA AIR PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,DHENKANAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year : 2012-2013

condoned by the appropriate authorities and thus the contention of the Department was found to be without force and it was held that there was no reason to consider the amount as income from other sources of the assessee and the addition was deleted. It is submitted that the present matter is practically on the same footing as the employees

SUBHALAXMI AGENCIES PVT. LTD.,NAYAGARH vs. JCIT, RAMGE-2, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and that of

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

condoned by the appropriate authorities and thus the contention of the Department was found to be without force and it was held that there was no reason to consider the amount as income from other sources of the assessee and the addition was deleted. It is submitted that the present matter is practically on the same footing as the employees

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. HI TECH ESTATES & PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarita Nos.732, 733 & 734/Ctk/2025 Assessment Years 2006-07, 2005-06 & 2004-05 Acit, Circle-1(1), Rajdhani Systems & Estates Bhubaneswar Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bhubaneswar, Odisha- 751007. (Pan: Aabcr8271L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

139(1). It was prayed that the notice has not been issued u/s 143(2) in regard to return filed by the assessee and the assessment had been quashed by the ld. CIT(A). It was further submitted that the issue of incriminating material was a legal issue and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. RAJDHANI SYSTEMS & ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarita Nos.732, 733 & 734/Ctk/2025 Assessment Years 2006-07, 2005-06 & 2004-05 Acit, Circle-1(1), Rajdhani Systems & Estates Bhubaneswar Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bhubaneswar, Odisha- 751007. (Pan: Aabcr8271L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

139(1). It was prayed that the notice has not been issued u/s 143(2) in regard to return filed by the assessee and the assessment had been quashed by the ld. CIT(A). It was further submitted that the issue of incriminating material was a legal issue and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. HI TECH ESTATES & PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarita Nos.732, 733 & 734/Ctk/2025 Assessment Years 2006-07, 2005-06 & 2004-05 Acit, Circle-1(1), Rajdhani Systems & Estates Bhubaneswar Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bhubaneswar, Odisha- 751007. (Pan: Aabcr8271L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

139(1). It was prayed that the notice has not been issued u/s 143(2) in regard to return filed by the assessee and the assessment had been quashed by the ld. CIT(A). It was further submitted that the issue of incriminating material was a legal issue and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. RAJDHANI SYSTEMS & ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarita Nos.732, 733 & 734/Ctk/2025 Assessment Years 2006-07, 2005-06 & 2004-05 Acit, Circle-1(1), Rajdhani Systems & Estates Bhubaneswar Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bhubaneswar, Odisha- 751007. (Pan: Aabcr8271L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

139(1). It was prayed that the notice has not been issued u/s 143(2) in regard to return filed by the assessee and the assessment had been quashed by the ld. CIT(A). It was further submitted that the issue of incriminating material was a legal issue and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. RAJDHANI SYSTEMS & ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarita Nos.732, 733 & 734/Ctk/2025 Assessment Years 2006-07, 2005-06 & 2004-05 Acit, Circle-1(1), Rajdhani Systems & Estates Bhubaneswar Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bhubaneswar, Odisha- 751007. (Pan: Aabcr8271L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

139(1). It was prayed that the notice has not been issued u/s 143(2) in regard to return filed by the assessee and the assessment had been quashed by the ld. CIT(A). It was further submitted that the issue of incriminating material was a legal issue and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court

M/S. BARIPADA URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.,BARIPADA vs. ACIT, BALASORE CIRCLE, BALASORE., BALASORE

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

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-2010 Baripada Urban Co-Operative Vs. Acit, Balasore Circle, Bank Ltd., At: Roxy Road, Balasore. Baripada Pan/Gir No. Aabat 2673 C (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

condone the delay of 179 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The assessee has filed additional grounds of appeal on 4.1.2016: ”1. For that notice u/s.143(2), neither was issued nor served on the appellant which is required in the statute and in absence of such notice, assessment made and orders

M/S. POWERWARE INDIA PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri N.S.Sainiआयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.206/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Powerware India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward-1(2), 6A, Zone-B, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar- 751010 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp 1607 R (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

condoned by the appropriate authorities and thus the contention of the Department was found to be without force and it was held that there was no reason to consider the amount as income from other sources of the assessee and the addition was deleted. It is submitted that the present matter is practically on the same footing as the employees