SAMASTI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,ASHOK NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

sections": ["154", "143(3)", "263", "270A"], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was justifiable and whether the delay should be condoned

DEBASHISH PATTNAYAK,BHUBANESWAR vs. CIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), BHUBNAESWAR

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpia

condone the delay of 190 days each in filing all the three appeals and the appeals are heard finally. 3. It was the submission of the ld. AR of the assessee that the assessee is a searfarer and filed his return of income for the relevant assessment year and the same came to be processed u/s.143

DEBASISH PATTNAYAK,BHUBANESWAR vs. CIT(INTERNASTIONALK TAXATION), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpia

condone the delay of 190 days each in filing all the three appeals and the appeals are heard finally. 3. It was the submission of the ld. AR of the assessee that the assessee is a searfarer and filed his return of income for the relevant assessment year and the same came to be processed u/s.143

BEBASHISH PATTNAIK,BHUBANESWAR vs. CIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpia

condone the delay of 190 days each in filing all the three appeals and the appeals are heard finally. 3. It was the submission of the ld. AR of the assessee that the assessee is a searfarer and filed his return of income for the relevant assessment year and the same came to be processed u/s.143

GRAM VIKAS,MOHUDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BERHAMPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiagram Vikas, I.T.O., Mohuda, B.O. Narsinghpur, Ganjam, Exemption Ward, Vs. Ganjam-760002 (Odisha) Berhampur. Pan No. Aaajg 0107 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

condone the delay of 559 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. Gram Vikas Vs ITO 4. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the addition as made in the assessment order was to an extent of Rs. 3,51,46,410/-. It was the submission that on appeal

M/S. UNITED HOTELS AND PROPERTIES PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CPC, , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2019-2020 2020 M/S. M/S. United United Hotels Hotels & And Vs. Acit, Cpc, Bengaluru Acit, Cpc, Bengaluru Properties Pvt Ltd., C/O. Properties Pvt Ltd., C/O. M/S. Salapuria Jajodia & M/S. Salapuria Jajodia & 3Rd Co., Co., 7, 7, C.R.Avenue, C.R.Avenue, 3 Floor, Kolkata Floor, Kolkata Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaacu 3108 N (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit , Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 01 /11 11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/11 11/2022 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 Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi , National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi , National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 15.3.2022 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021-22/10407377956 (1) 22/10407377956 (1) For The Assessment Year 2019-2020. 2020. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee When The Matter Was None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee When The Matter Was None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee When The Matter Was Called For Hearing. Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. Called For Hearing. Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. Called For Hearing. Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

condone the delay of 58 days and admit the appeal for hearing. 4. It was submitted by ld CIT DR that the issue involved in this appeal is delayed payment of PF and ESI of Rs.5,21,154/- in respect of employees contribution. Ld CIT DR submitted that the issue is now squarely covered by the decision

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

condonation of delay for not filing of its return of income within the statutory time limit, before the CBDT u/s 119(2)(b) of Income Tax Act, which has expressed provision for admission of claim of any exemption after the expiry of the period specified in the Income Tax Act. 2.4.2 In view of the above, it is humbly submitted

BHAIRABI CLUB AOP,KURUMPADA,HADAPADA,KHORDHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2016-17 Bhairabi Club, Kurumpada, Bhairabi Club, Kurumpada, Vs. Cit (A), Nfac, Delhi Cit (A), Nfac, Delhi Po: Hadapada, Dist: Khurda Po: Hadapada, Dist: Khurda Pan/Gir No. No.Aaaab 3606 N (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Adv J.M.Pattnaik, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/8 8/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/8 /8/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

section 154 of the Act. That it was in this backdrop that the appeal was delayed by 253 days, which was not intentional. This fact has not been found to be false. Consequently, we condone

SAROJ KANTA MOHANTY,MALKANGIRI vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialassessment Year : 2021-2022 2022 Saroj Kanta Mohanty Saroj Kanta Mohanty, Plot Vs. Asst. Director Of Income Asst. Director Of Income No.18/08, Mohanty Building, No.18/08, Mohanty Building, Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru. Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru. Lathia Guda, Near Lathia Guda, Near Block Block Colony, Malkangiri. Colony, Malkangiri. Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Afmpm 8480 K (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Adv P.K.Mishra, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/0 05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/0 /05/2024 O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Aga This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Inst The Order Of The Ld Addl.Jcit(A)-1, 1, Jaipur Dated 10.1.2024 In Appeal No. In Appeal No.Addl/Jcit(A)-1 Jaipur/10002/2020 /10002/2020-21 For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 22. .

section 154(8) of the Act shows that the rectification petition should have been disposed of within six months from the end of the month in which the application was received. Admittedly, this has also not been done. This being so, I find that the delay in filing appeal before the ld CIT(A) was not on account

SHRI SIDHARTHA SAHA,SAMBALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialassessment Year : 2021-2022 2022 Saroj Kanta Mohanty Saroj Kanta Mohanty, Plot Vs. Asst. Director Of Income Asst. Director Of Income No.18/08, Mohanty Building, No.18/08, Mohanty Building, Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru. Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru. Lathia Guda, Near Lathia Guda, Near Block Block Colony, Malkangiri. Colony, Malkangiri. Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Afmpm 8480 K (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Adv P.K.Mishra, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/0 05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/0 /05/2024 O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Aga This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Inst The Order Of The Ld Addl.Jcit(A)-1, 1, Jaipur Dated 10.1.2024 In Appeal No. In Appeal No.Addl/Jcit(A)-1 Jaipur/10002/2020 /10002/2020-21 For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 22. .

section 154(8) of the Act shows that the rectification petition should have been disposed of within six months from the end of the month in which the application was received. Admittedly, this has also not been done. This being so, I find that the delay in filing appeal before the ld CIT(A) was not on account

PARADIP PORT AUTHORITY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

delay should be condoned. 5. Consequent upon the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa and after due consideration of the submission of the assessee, the total income of the assessee was computed as Rs.Nil after allowing the benefit of exemption u/s 11 of the Act for all the subject assessment years. Copy of the order dated

PARADIP PORT AUTHORITY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

delay should be condoned. 5. Consequent upon the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa and after due consideration of the submission of the assessee, the total income of the assessee was computed as Rs.Nil after allowing the benefit of exemption u/s 11 of the Act for all the subject assessment years. Copy of the order dated

PARADIP PORT AUTHORITY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

delay should be condoned. 5. Consequent upon the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa and after due consideration of the submission of the assessee, the total income of the assessee was computed as Rs.Nil after allowing the benefit of exemption u/s 11 of the Act for all the subject assessment years. Copy of the order dated

BACK TO VILLAGE,RAIRANGPUR, MAYURBHANJ vs. ITO, WARD 1, BARIPADA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.64/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2022-2023) Back To Village Vs Ito, Ward-1, Baripada Flat- G1 Loknath(R) Complex, Near Mandir Shahi Kucheibudhi, Rairangpur, Mayurbhanj, 757043 Pan No. : Aadab 2576 L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/09/2025

section 143(1) of the Act on 31.03.2023 where in the application of the income had been denyied and the entire receipts of the assesee had been brought to tax. It was submission that the assessee had filed the rectification application u/s. 154 of the Act on 27.04.2023 and CPC have also rejected the 154 application