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

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

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

1). (7) The Assessing Officer may, on receipt of the report from the Valuation Officer, and after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard, take into account such report in making the assessment or reassessment. Explanation.—In this section, "Valuation Officer" has the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth

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

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(1

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

1 | 12 Assessment Year : 2001-02 reasons in reply to the notice issued by the Registry regarding 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

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

1 | 9 Assessment Year : 2010-2011 3. The appeal is time barred by 359 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition supported by an affidavit sworn by Sri Suresh Chandra Agarwal, Managing Partner of M/s. Deokaran Das Rambilash, wherein, it is stated that he received order of the ld CIT(A) on 20.9.2019 and the appeal has to be filed

STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ODISHA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARAD 5(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed and stay petition stands dismissed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwals.P.No.11/Ctk/2024 Assessment Year :2017-18 State Pollution Control Board State Pollution Control Board, Vs. Ito, Ward 5(2), Plot No.A-118, Paribesh Bhawan, 118, Paribesh Bhawan, Bhubaneswar Nilakantha Nagar, Agar, Nayapali, Nayapali, Unit-Vii, Bhubaneswar Neswar Pan/Gir No.Aaals 2490 J Aaals 2490 J (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agrawalla, Ca Walla, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/10/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/10/20 024 O R D E R Per Bench

143(3) of Income Tax Act dated 23rd October 2018 had denied the exemption claimed by the Appellant u/s 10(46) of Income Tax Act on the ground that the appellant failed to file its return of Income as per the provisions of section 139(4C)(g) of the Income Tax Act. The AO had also observed that the notification

SUSHIL KUMAR ROUT,ROURKELA vs. ACIT, ROURKELA

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

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :1998-1999

condone the delay of 232 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. In Ground No.3 of the appeal, the assessee has taken the following ground: “For that the AO without application of own mind or having own reasons to believe reopened the case having followed the direction of the higher authorities

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

SADHANA FOUNDATION,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

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

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

condonation of delay and file an appeal against the above-mentioned order which should have been filed within one month from receiving the intimation under section 143(1

LOK BIKASH,HARIDASPUR vs. ITO EXEMPTION, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay of 684 days in filing the present appeal is condoned and the appeal is disposed off on merits. 3. 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

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

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

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