M/S. VINAYAK AGRO INDUSTRIES,ROURKELA vs. ITO WARD-4, ROURKELA

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

delay of 9 days each in the present appeals are condoned and both the appeals are disposed off on merits. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that there was a search in the premises of the assessee by the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Regional Unit, Rourkela on 03.08.2012. In the course of search, one laptop

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/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

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “A. For that, the order of the forums below are illegal absurd, improper and excessive in the facts and circumstances of the case, hence the orders passed are liable to be deleted. B. For that

DIBAKAR SWAIN,CHHOTI NIKIRAI, KENDRAPARA vs. ITO, WARD KENDRAPADA, KENDRAPADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2017-18 Dibakar Dibakar Swain, Swain, Vs. Ito, Ward, Chakargunathpur, Chakargunathpur, Chhoti Chhoti Kendrapara. Nikirai, Kendrapara Nikirai, Kendrapara Pan/Gir No. No.Bbnxps 2582 N (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 09/01/20 2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/01/20 025 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Cit(A), Cit(A), Nfac, Nfac, Nfac, Delhi Delhi Delhi Dated Dated Dated 17.8.2023 17.8.2023 17.8.2023 In In In Appeal Appeal Appeal No.Cit(A),Cuttack/10899/2019 No.Cit(A),Cuttack/10899/2019-20 For The Assessment Year Essment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri S.K.Sarangi S.K.Sarangi Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. , Sr. Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

3. For that estimation of net profit @ 6% on the turnover of Rs.5,16,06,634/- and consequential addition of Rs.38,96,392/- (Rs.30,96,398/- determined by ld AO) as sustained by the ld CIT(A) is illegal, high and excessive on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.” 4. The appeal is delayed by 423 days

KARTAVYA CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

delay of 36 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee is in the business of meter reading, bill distribution and revenue collection work for the 2 electricity distribution in the state of Orissa. The assessee

SUNIL KUMAR MAHAPATRA,BARGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR., SAMBALPUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sunil Kumar Mahapatra Sunil Kumar Mahapatra Vs. Acit, Acit, Balasore Balasore Circle, Circle, At; Bandutikra Ward No. 09 Bandutikra Ward No. 09 Sambalpur Po/Ps/Dist: Po/Ps/Dist: Baragarh, 768028 Odisha Pan/Gir No. . Aibpm1422F (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K Mishra, Adv , Adv Revenue By Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey,, Ld Cit : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey,, Ld Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/12/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/12/2 2024 O R D E R Per Bench:

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. P a g e 3 | 11 Assessment Year : 2018-19 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of running a stone crusher and having income from sales of grit and allied products. A survey u/s 133A

BHARATIYA SIKSHYA BIKASHA SANSTHANA,BERHAMPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year :2021-22 Bharatiya Sikshya Bikasha Bharatiya Sikshya Bikasha Vs. Income Income Tax Tax Officer, Officer, Sansthana , (Exemption),Berhampur Berhampur Siddhartha Nagar 1St Line Siddhartha Nagar 1 Po Po : : Banthapali Banthapali, Puruna Berhampur, B.O : Berhampur Sadar, B.O : Berhampur Sadar, Ganjam , 760002 Ganjam , 760002 Pan/Gir No. No. Aactb 4047N (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Radha Krishna Sahu, Radha Krishna Sahu, 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 This Is An This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Ainst The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 30.8.2024 In Appeal No.Cit(A), Cit(A),Nfac/2020- 21/10291247 For The Ass For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. Shri Radha Kr Radha Krishna Sahu, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. , Sr. Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

145/- as taxable income and raising a demand of Rs.21,18,310/p- while assessing the assessee u/s.14391) of the IT Act. 3. That the CIT(A) is unjustified by upholding the order passed u/s.143(1) by disallowing the expenses of Rs.54,76,336/- without considering the details of expenses reported by the assessee in Form ITR-7. 4) That