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

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

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

M/S. MAHASAKTI FOUNDATION,KALAHANDI vs. ACIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

condonation of delay in seeking registration was not available. This clearly goes to prove that the first proviso to section 12A(2) was brought in the statute only as a retrospective effect with a view not to affect genuine charitable trusts and societies carrying on genuine charitable objects in the earlier years and substantive conditions stipulated in section

JM MINING AND TRADING PVT. LTD.,TULSIPUR, CUTTACK vs. A.C.I.T, CIRCLE-2(1), CUTTACK, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, SHELTER CHOWK, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.36 & 37/Ctk/2024 24 Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011 11 & 2011-12 Jm Mining & Trading Pvt Jm Mining & Trading Pvt Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-2(1), Ltd., Ltd., At At-Madhusudan Cuttack Avenue, Tulsipur, Cuttack Avenue, Tulsipur, Cuttack Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aabcj 2946 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, Sandeep Kumar Jena, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/0 07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/0 /07/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

147 of the Act. As a consequence the assessment for the impugned A/Y 2010-11 and 2011-12 the appellant company JMMTPL were also reopened \1/s.147 of the Act. As a result for the Ay- 2008-09 to 2010-11 the assessments were completed u/s.14 7 /144 of the Act in substantive manner and for the impugned

JM MINING AND TRADING PVT. LTD,TULSIPUR, CUTTACK vs. A.C.I.T CIRCLE2(1), CUTTACK CIRCLE, CUTTACK, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, SHELTER CHOWK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.36 & 37/Ctk/2024 24 Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011 11 & 2011-12 Jm Mining & Trading Pvt Jm Mining & Trading Pvt Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-2(1), Ltd., Ltd., At At-Madhusudan Cuttack Avenue, Tulsipur, Cuttack Avenue, Tulsipur, Cuttack Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aabcj 2946 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, Sandeep Kumar Jena, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/0 07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/0 /07/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

147 of the Act. As a consequence the assessment for the impugned A/Y 2010-11 and 2011-12 the appellant company JMMTPL were also reopened \1/s.147 of the Act. As a result for the Ay- 2008-09 to 2010-11 the assessments were completed u/s.14 7 /144 of the Act in substantive manner and for the impugned

KARANI DAN CHANDAK,JAJPUR ROAD vs. AO, NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri R.K.Pandaassessment Year : 2017-18 Karani Dan Chandak, Prop. M/S. Vs. Addl.Joint/Dy.Asst.Commssioner Chandan Zarda Store, Jajpur Of Income Tax, Nfac, Delhi Road, Jajpur Pan/Gir No.Aeppc 8155 H (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C.Bhadra, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/05/2024 O R D E R Per R.K.Panda

condoning the delay in filing of the appeal and thereby sustaining the addition of Rs.3,02,93,425/- made by the AO u/s.69A of the Act being unexplained cash deposit in the bank account during the year. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for the impugned

PRAMOD KUMAR SAHOO,KEONJHAR vs. ITO,KEONJHAR WARD, , KEONJHAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Ld. Ao There Was Absolutely No Response To Notices Fixing The Dates For Hearing After The Proceedings Had Been Initiated U/S 147 Of The Act. Thereafter, The Ld. Ao Proceeded To Add Rs. 12,00,000/- On Account Of Expenditure From Unknown Sources Incurred In The Marriage Ceremony Of The Assesses Daughter.

147 of the Act. Thereafter, the Ld. AO proceeded to add Rs. 12,00,000/- on account of expenditure from unknown sources incurred in the marriage ceremony of the assesses daughter. 2 Pramod Kumar Sahoo 1.1 Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed the appeal with a delay of 1726 days. In justification of the said delay, the assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( EXEMPTIONS), BHUBANESWAR vs. NABAJUGA EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST, DHENKANAL

In the result, appeal of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.127/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2018-2019) Dy. Cit(Exemptions), Vs Nabajuga Educational & Bhubaneswar Charitable Trust, Flat No.N/4-208, Irc Village, Khorda-751015 Pan No. : Aaatn 7735 R & Cross Objection No.03/Ctk/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.127/Ctk/2022) (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2018-2019) Nabajuga Educational & Vs Dy. Cit(Exemptions), Bhubaneswar Charitable Trust, Flat No.N/4-208, Irc Village, Khorda-751015 Pan No. : Aaatn 7735 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

147 days in filing the present appeal and appeal of the revenue is heard finally. 3. At the time of hearing, ld. AR submitted that he did not want to press the cross objection and has withdrawn the same. In this regard, ld. AR has also endorsed in the file to that effect. Consequently, the cross objection filed

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

KAILASH AGRAWAL,BARGARH vs. ITO, BARGARH WARD, BARGARH

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita No.430 & 431/Ctk/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14

section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act for the assessment year 2013 of the Act for the assessment year 2013-14,. P a g e 1 | 4 ITA No.430 & 431/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14 2. ITA No.431/CTK/2024 is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 28.8.2024 in Appeal No.NFAC/2021-22/10186347

KAILASH AGRAWAL,BARGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARGARH

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita No.430 & 431/Ctk/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14

section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act for the assessment year 2013 of the Act for the assessment year 2013-14,. P a g e 1 | 4 ITA No.430 & 431/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14 2. ITA No.431/CTK/2024 is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 28.8.2024 in Appeal No.NFAC/2021-22/10186347

HEMANT KUMAR MAJHI,KONGARA vs. ITO, JEYPORE WARD, JEYPORE

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

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

147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, dated 27.02.2024. I.T.A. No.: 65/CTK/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Hemant Kumar Majhi. 1.1. The Registry has informed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 83 days. An affidavit seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as under: “I Sri Hemant Kumar Majhi aged about

ROLAND INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condoned so as to make way for the cause of substantial justice. We accordingly hold that assessee’s impugned delay (supra) is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to circumstances beyond its control. Cases are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 4. We advert to the sole identical issue of section 10(23C)(vi) approval raised in assessee

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condoned so as to make way for the cause of substantial justice. We accordingly hold that assessee’s impugned delay (supra) is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to circumstances beyond its control. Cases are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 4. We advert to the sole identical issue of section 10(23C)(vi) approval raised in assessee

RONALD EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condoned so as to make way for the cause of substantial justice. We accordingly hold that assessee’s impugned delay (supra) is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to circumstances beyond its control. Cases are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 4. We advert to the sole identical issue of section 10(23C)(vi) approval raised in assessee

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condoned so as to make way for the cause of substantial justice. We accordingly hold that assessee’s impugned delay (supra) is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to circumstances beyond its control. Cases are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 4. We advert to the sole identical issue of section 10(23C)(vi) approval raised in assessee