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

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 measures available with him. Ground No. 6: That the assessee has been taxed for a procedural delay

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

5) and, therefore, the return as mentioned in the provisions of section 148 could have been deemed to be a return u/s.139(1) of the Act. It was also the submission that the assesse has filed a petition before the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) u/s 119(2)(b) for condoning the delay in filing of the return

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)

5. We have considered the rival submissions. An order passed by the Tribunal is under the provisions of section 254(1) of the Act. A reading of provision of section 254(1) of the Act shows that the Tribunal, may after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such order thereon as they deem

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)

5. We have considered the rival submissions. An order passed by the Tribunal is under the provisions of section 254(1) of the Act. A reading of provision of section 254(1) of the Act shows that the Tribunal, may after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such order thereon as they deem

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)

5. We have considered the rival submissions. An order passed by the Tribunal is under the provisions of section 254(1) of the Act. A reading of provision of section 254(1) of the Act shows that the Tribunal, may after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such order thereon as they deem

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)

5. We have considered the rival submissions. An order passed by the Tribunal is under the provisions of section 254(1) of the Act. A reading of provision of section 254(1) of the Act shows that the Tribunal, may after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such order thereon as they deem

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)

5. We have considered the rival submissions. An order passed by the Tribunal is under the provisions of section 254(1) of the Act. A reading of provision of section 254(1) of the Act shows that the Tribunal, may after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such order thereon as they deem

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

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

Delay condoned. We have perused the review petition and find that the tax effect in this case is above Rs.1 crore, that is, Rs.6,59,27,298/-. Ordinarily, therefore, we would have recalled our order dated 17th September, 2018, since the order was passed only on the basis that the tax effect in this case is less than Rs.1 crore

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

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

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