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

4: The AO erred in levying interest under section 234B and C of the Act. Ground No. 5: Even otherwise since the delay in filing Form 10 is condonable one, (vide Board’s Circular No. 273 dt. 3/6/1980) Assessing Officer ought not to have rejected the claim for deduction under section 11(2) without educating the assessee about the remedial

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

139(8A) of the IT Act without accepting that the Audit Report in Form No. 10B has been filed before 30 days from the due date for filing the return prescribed under the above section.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a trust and had filed its return of income

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

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)

4. In reply, the ld. AR submitted that the Tribunal had granted liberty to the assessee to file return and the return having been filed on the direction of the Tribunal, the same is liable to be treated as return filed u/s 139(1). It was prayed that the notice has not been issued u/s 143(2) in regard

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)

4. In reply, the ld. AR submitted that the Tribunal had granted liberty to the assessee to file return and the return having been filed on the direction of the Tribunal, the same is liable to be treated as return filed u/s 139(1). It was prayed that the notice has not been issued u/s 143(2) in regard

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)

4. In reply, the ld. AR submitted that the Tribunal had granted liberty to the assessee to file return and the return having been filed on the direction of the Tribunal, the same is liable to be treated as return filed u/s 139(1). It was prayed that the notice has not been issued u/s 143(2) in regard

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)

4. In reply, the ld. AR submitted that the Tribunal had granted liberty to the assessee to file return and the return having been filed on the direction of the Tribunal, the same is liable to be treated as return filed u/s 139(1). It was prayed that the notice has not been issued u/s 143(2) in regard

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)

4. In reply, the ld. AR submitted that the Tribunal had granted liberty to the assessee to file return and the return having been filed on the direction of the Tribunal, the same is liable to be treated as return filed u/s 139(1). It was prayed that the notice has not been issued u/s 143(2) in regard

URMILA KISHAN,ANGUL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC)

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal which are more in the nature of submissions than the grounds of appeal but are reproduced as under: “1. Unjustified Addition of Unsecured Loans u/s 68 of the Act, Ld. AO has erred in facts

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

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

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/CTK/2020\n4. The first issue raised by the Revenue in ground nos. 1 to 4

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

M/S. BAJRANGBALI STEEL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD,ROURKLA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)/It(Ss)A Nos.31 To 33/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017 To 2018-2019) M/S Bee Pee Rollers Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Central Circle, Sambalpur Lal Building, Kachery Road, Rourkela, Sundergarh, Odisha-769012 Pan No. :Aabcb 3593 P & आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)/It(Ss)A Nos.34 To 39/Ctk/2022 & आयकर अऩीऱ/Ita No.109/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-2017 To 2020-2021) M/S Bajrangbali Steel Industries Pvt. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Sambalpur Ltd., Lal Building, Kachery Road, Rourkela, Sundergarh, Odisha-769012 Pan No. :Aabcb 3594 L & आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)/It(Ss)A Nos.40 To 44/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015 To 2018-2019) M/S Bajrangbali Re-Rollers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Sambalpur Lal Building, Kachery Road, Rourkela, Sundergarh, Odisha-769012 Pan No. :Aaccb 6678 A (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate With Shri B.K. Tibrewal, Ca & Ms. Nisha Rachh, Ca Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr.Cit(Osd) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2023

4 IT(SS)A No.31-44/CTK/2022 & ITA No.109/CTK/2022 bills with the information in the tally data was found. It was the submission that as per the provisions of Section 292C of the Act, the books of accounts as found in the course of search is to be deemed to be true. The ld. AR placed reliance on the decision

KALINGA MINING CORPORATION,CUTTACK vs. A.C.I.T, CIRCLE-2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

condone the delay of 2761 days in filing the present appeals and both the appeals of the assessee are heard on merits. 3. As the issues involved in both the years under appeal are common and the grounds taken by the assessee are also similar, therefore, both the appeals are decided together. For the sake of convenience, facts and grounds

KALINGA MINING CORPORATION,CUTTACK vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

condone the delay of 2761 days in filing the present appeals and both the appeals of the assessee are heard on merits. 3. As the issues involved in both the years under appeal are common and the grounds taken by the assessee are also similar, therefore, both the appeals are decided together. For the sake of convenience, facts and grounds

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JHARSUGUDA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, JHARSUGUDA vs. HIRAKHAND TRANSPORT AND MULTI PURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., BRAJARAJ NAGAR

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.282/Ctk/2024 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Ito, Ward-1, Jharsuguda Vs Hirakhand Transport & Multi Purpose Cooperative Society Pvt. Ltd., At-Chingriguda, Bijapara, R Kudopali, Brajrajnagar, Jharsuguda-768216 Pan No. :Aaaah 5874 Q & प्रत्याक्षेऩ सं/Cross Objection No.04/Ctk/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.282/Ctk/2024) (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Hirakhand Transport & Multi Vs Ito, Ward-1, Jharsuguda Purpose Cooperative Society Pvt. Ltd., At-Chingriguda, Bijapara, R Kudopali, Brajrajnagar, Jharsuguda-768216 Pan No. :Aaaah 5874 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Anil Kumar Agrawala, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/09/2024 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 15.05.2024, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1064895008(1) For The Assessment Year 2015-2016, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :-

delay is hereby condoned and the cross objections are admitted for adjudication on merits. 4. The assessee in his cross objection has challenged the assessment order on the jurisdictional issue. Therefore, before going into the grounds 5 & CO No.04/CTK/2024 of appeal taken by the revenue, we first decide the technical/legal objections taken about the validity of reassessment order

M/S. GRID CORPORATION OF ORISSA LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANSWAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.34 & 35/Ctk/2019 2019 Assessment Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014 14 & 2014-15 M/S. Grid Corporation Of M/S. Grid Corporation Of Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle -1(1), Orissa Ltd., Gridco House, Orissa Ltd., Gridco House, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Janpath, Bhubaneswar Janpath, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabcg 5398 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

condone the delay of 269 days and admit the appeals for hearing on merits. 4. It was submitted by ld AR that for the assessment year 2013-14, the original assessment came to be completed u/s.143(3) on 19.2.2016 and for assessment year 2014-15 on 26.2.2016. For the assessment year 2013-14, the Pr. CIT initiated proceedings u/s.263