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

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

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

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

BARUAN SERVICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAJPUR WARD, JAJPUR, JAJPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical\npurposes

condoned the delay, set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": ["147

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

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

JINCE KURIAN,SAMBALPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1) SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals stand partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

condoned the delay of 162 days and admitted the appeal for hearing. The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to respond to notices issued by the CIT(A). However, to meet the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for one more opportunity for the assessee

AMBIKA SAHOO,JAJPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE,CUTTACK, CUTTACK

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the assessee's submission regarding COVID-19. The issues in all the appeals were restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication. This restoration is subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 2000/- for each appeal.", "result": "Allowed for statistical purposes", "sections": ["147

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

S.B. COMBINE,CUTTACK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK, CUTTACK

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

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumar

delay in filing the appeals before the ld CIT(A) be condoned and matter be restored to his file for readjudication after hearing the assessee. 3. Further, it is submitted by the ld AR that the reassessment order is barred by limitation as the reassessment relates to A.Y. 2015-16 and 148 notice was issued on 1.4.2021 without complying