KAPILDEV DUBEY,MAYURBHANJ vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2,BARIPADA, MAYURBHANJ

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

condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's medical condition. It noted that proper representation was not made at lower appellate stages and deemed it appropriate to provide another opportunity for the assessee to present their case.", "result": "Remanded", "sections": [ "143

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

Condonation of delay 07. That the Order of the Commissioner (Exemptions) prompted the assessee to seek the remedy available to it. Upon consultation of the provisions of law the assessee found it expedient to prefer this appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal seeking appropriate relief against the computation of its income under section 143

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)

condone the delay . It is already conceded by ld. Sr. Advocate representing assessee that the assessee does not have any case on the merits of the issue raised by ld. PCIT in his revisionary order dated 18.03.2021 passed u/s 263 of the 1961 Act. The only surving issue before me is the limitation for invoking the provisions of Section

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

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

ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

143(3) 2020-21 209 272A(1)(d) 2022-23 64 144 12. In the condonation petitions filed before the ld CIT(A) it is commonly stated that due to online service of notice, consequential orders and non- verification of income tax portal on regular basis coupled with negligence or inaction of the authorized representatives of the assessee

ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

143(3) 2020-21 209 272A(1)(d) 2022-23 64 144 12. In the condonation petitions filed before the ld CIT(A) it is commonly stated that due to online service of notice, consequential orders and non- verification of income tax portal on regular basis coupled with negligence or inaction of the authorized representatives of the assessee

ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

143(3) 2020-21 209 272A(1)(d) 2022-23 64 144 12. In the condonation petitions filed before the ld CIT(A) it is commonly stated that due to online service of notice, consequential orders and non- verification of income tax portal on regular basis coupled with negligence or inaction of the authorized representatives of the assessee

ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

143(3) 2020-21 209 272A(1)(d) 2022-23 64 144 12. In the condonation petitions filed before the ld CIT(A) it is commonly stated that due to online service of notice, consequential orders and non- verification of income tax portal on regular basis coupled with negligence or inaction of the authorized representatives of the assessee

ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), , BHUBANEWSWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

143(3) 2020-21 209 272A(1)(d) 2022-23 64 144 12. In the condonation petitions filed before the ld CIT(A) it is commonly stated that due to online service of notice, consequential orders and non- verification of income tax portal on regular basis coupled with negligence or inaction of the authorized representatives of the assessee

ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

143(3) 2020-21 209 272A(1)(d) 2022-23 64 144 12. In the condonation petitions filed before the ld CIT(A) it is commonly stated that due to online service of notice, consequential orders and non- verification of income tax portal on regular basis coupled with negligence or inaction of the authorized representatives of the assessee

ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

143(3) 2020-21 209 272A(1)(d) 2022-23 64 144 12. In the condonation petitions filed before the ld CIT(A) it is commonly stated that due to online service of notice, consequential orders and non- verification of income tax portal on regular basis coupled with negligence or inaction of the authorized representatives of the assessee

ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

143(3) 2020-21 209 272A(1)(d) 2022-23 64 144 12. In the condonation petitions filed before the ld CIT(A) it is commonly stated that due to online service of notice, consequential orders and non- verification of income tax portal on regular basis coupled with negligence or inaction of the authorized representatives of the assessee

M/S. EXIM INDIA OIL COMPANY LTD,CUTTACK vs. DCIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the petition. Ld CIT DR agreed to the fact that the impugned first appellate order was passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on 24.10.2007 and served on the assessee on 29.12.2007. The appeal to the Tribunal has been presented within the prescribed time

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

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

section 143(1) on 13/12/2024, the audit report filed on Form No. 10BB on 04/04/2024 was available and therefore, the required claim ought to have been allowed. It was submitted that the delay was only a procedural lapse and ought to have been condoned

MR. NARENDRA KUMA RBAL,KEONJHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KEONJHAR WARD, KEONJHAR

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

143(3) of the Act, dated 13.03.2014. 1.1. The Registry has informed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 651 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as under: “1. That the First Appeal order passed by the Id. CIT(A) was received on 31.03.2023 and according

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.

condone the delay of 339 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. It was submitted by ld AR that this is an appeal against the order u/s.143(1) of the Act issued by the CPC. It was the submission that as per the provisions of section 143