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)

ii) of TOLA, 2020. The said Act of 2020(TOLA,2020) was brought in during Covid-19 pandemic. It was submitted by ld. Sr. Advocate that Section 263 of the 1961 Act is not amended , and since TOLA, 2020 is enabling Act , it cannot be extended to Section 263 of the1961 Act. It was submitted that the notice was required

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

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 nos. 1

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

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

ii) that having regard to the nature of the asset and other relevant circumstances, it is necessary so to do, and where any such reference is made, the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of section 16-A, clauses (ha) and (i) of sub- section (1) and sub-sections (3-A) and (4) of section

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 nos. 1

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 nos. 1

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

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

PURI URBAN AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,PURI vs. ITO WARD, PURI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialassessment Year : 2019-20 Puri Puri Urban Urban & & Rur Rural Vs. Centralised Centralised Processing Processing Development Development Co Co-Operative Centre, Bengaluru Centre, Bengaluru Society Ltd., Ltd.,Grand Road, Near Mausima Temple, Puri. Near Mausima Temple, Puri. Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aacap 9286 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nihar Ranjan Biswal, Biswal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, : Shri Charan Dass, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/0 06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/0 /06/2024 O R D E R 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 Cit(A),Nfac, Delhi Cit(A),Nfac, Delhi Dated 26.2.2023 In Appeal No. Nfac/2018 Nfac/2018-19/10096629 For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Shri Nihar Ranjan Biswal, Nihar Ranjan Biswal, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri The Assessee & Shri Charan Dass, Ld Sr. Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

condone the delay 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(1), before making any adjustment, a show cause notice has to be issued

KENDRAPARA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,KENDRAPADA vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.163/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Kendrapara Urban Co-Operative Vs Pr.Cit, Cuttack Bank Ltd., College Square, Tinimuhani, Kendrapara-754211 Pan No. :Aaatk 8347 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.C.Sethi, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/01/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Pr.Cit, Cuttack, Dated 24.03.2020, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Com/F/17/2019-20/1026884702(1) For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 8 Days. The Assessee Through Its Secretary Has Filed An Application Dated 13.07.2020 Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons For Condonation Of Delay, To Which Ld. Cit-Dr Did Not Object. In View Of The Above, Delay Of 8 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Is Condoned & The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Heard Finally. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Original Assessment In The Case Of The Assessee Was Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 20.11.2017. It Was The Submission That The Assessment Was A Limited Scrutiny

delay of 8 days in filing the present appeal is condoned and the appeal of the assessee is heard finally. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the original assessment in the case of the assessee was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 20.11.2017. It was the submission that the assessment was a limited scrutiny 2 assessment

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

PEOPLES FORUM,BHUBANESWAR,ODISHA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), CIT(EXEMPTION)HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and the stay petition stands dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwals.P. No.12/Ctk/2023 People People Forums Forums, Hig-97, Vs. Cit (Exemptions), Cit (Exemptions), Dharma Vihar, Khandagiri, Dharma Vihar, Khandagiri, Hyderabad Hyderabad Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aaatpo 2214 R (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agrawala, Ca/S.K.Hota, Adv /S.K.Hota, Adv Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Ld : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Ld Cit Dr

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal disposed off on merits. 8. At the outset, it was submitted by ld AR that the order passed u/s.12AB(4) on 20.6.2023 did not contain the Document Identification Number (DIN No.) and consequently in view of the circular issued by CBDT in Circular No.19/2019 dated 14.8.2019, the order

KAMYAB EXPORTS (P) LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.538 & 539/Ctk/2024 Assessment Year 2009-10 Kamyab Exports Pvt Ltd.,Plot Kamyab Exports Pvt Ltd.,Plot Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Dcit, Corporate Circle No.301, No.301, Royal Royal Height Height Bhubaneswar Apartment, Lane No.10, Jaydev Apartment, Lane No.10, Jaydev Vihar, , Bhubaneswar , Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No.Aacck 5144 N .Aacck 5144 N (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty , Adv , Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 31/12/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/12/20 024 O R D E R Per Bench

143(3) r.w.s 250 of the Act. ITA No.539/CTK/2014 is an 539/CTK/2014 is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld CIT(A), appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld CIT(A), dated 15.3.2024 in the matter of penalty under

KAMYAB EXPORTS (P) LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.538 & 539/Ctk/2024 Assessment Year 2009-10 Kamyab Exports Pvt Ltd.,Plot Kamyab Exports Pvt Ltd.,Plot Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Dcit, Corporate Circle No.301, No.301, Royal Royal Height Height Bhubaneswar Apartment, Lane No.10, Jaydev Apartment, Lane No.10, Jaydev Vihar, , Bhubaneswar , Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No.Aacck 5144 N .Aacck 5144 N (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty , Adv , Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 31/12/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/12/20 024 O R D E R Per Bench

143(3) r.w.s 250 of the Act. ITA No.539/CTK/2014 is an 539/CTK/2014 is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld CIT(A), appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld CIT(A), dated 15.3.2024 in the matter of penalty under

ABHIMANYU SAHU,BUXIPALLI vs. PCIT-1,, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Abhimanyu Sahu, Buxipalli, Abhimanyu Sahu, Buxipalli, Vs. Pr. Cit-1, Gopalpur On Sea. Gopalpur On Sea. Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aokps 4011 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.N.Dave, Ca P.N.Dave, Ca Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 24 /0 03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 24 /0 /03/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Against The Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Act 263 Of The Act Of The Ld Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar-1 Dated Dated 10.3.2021 In Appeal No. Itba/Rev/ V/F/Rev5/2020-21/1031385941(1) For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Shri P.N.Dave, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri P.N.Dave, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri P.N.Dave, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Pr. Cit(Osd) Appeared For The Revenue. M.K.Gautam, Ld Pr. Cit(Osd) Appeared For The Revenue. M.K.Gautam, Ld Pr. Cit(Osd) Appeared For The Revenue.

condone the delay of 296 days in filing the appeal by the assessee and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. It was submitted by ld AR that the original assessment came to be completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 27.12.2018. The assessment was a ‘Limited Scrutiny assessment’ and in the assessment of ‘limited scrutiny’ the issue was whether contract

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

DEBASHREE PRIYADARSHINI SETHY,KANSAR, KENDRAPARA vs. ITO WARD, KENDRAPARA, KENDRAPARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.132/Ctk/2024 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Debashree Priadarshini Sethy, Vs Ito, Ward Kendrapara, C/O-Prahlad Sethy Kansar, Kendrapara Via-Baldadevjew, Kendrapara-754212 Pan No. :Fsdps 3497 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2024 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 16.01.2024, In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1059784550(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. As Per The Office Note, There Is A Delay Of 14 Days In Filing The Appeal. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Along With Affidavit Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons For Condonation Of Delay. Ld. Sr. Dr Did Not Raise Any Serious Objection. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay Of 14 Days In Filing The Present Appeal & The Appeal Is Heard & Disposed Off Finally On Merits. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Case Of The Assessee Was Taken Up For Limited Scrutiny For The Sole Reason To Verify The Cash Deposit During

condone the delay of 14 days in filing the present appeal and the appeal is heard and disposed off finally on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was taken up for limited scrutiny for the sole reason to verify the cash deposit during 2 the year and the assessment was completed u/s.143