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. ORISSA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, ITA No.335/CTK/2017 is allowed and ITA

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Orissa Cricket Association Vs. Cit(Exemptions), Barabati Stadium,Cuttack-753001, Hyderabad Odisha, Pan No. : Aaaao 0319 F & Orissa Cricket Association Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Barabati Stadium, Cuttack Cuttack-753001, Odisha Pan No. : Aaaao 0319 F (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. निर्धाऩिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan & D.Das, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Saad Kidwai, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12/12/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri N.S.Saini, Am:

condonation of delay) is enclosed at page nos. 02 to,03 of the paper book. However no Order U/S 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed by the competent income tax authority either refusing or allowing registration to the appellant as a trust even though several years had passed after receipt of the application for registration

RAVI METALLICS LIMITED,ROURKELA vs. PR.CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaravi Metallics Limited, I/10, Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan No.Adqps 4031 G ………………Assessee Versus Pr.Cit, Sambalpur ………………..Revenue Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ar For The Assessee Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr For The Revenue Date Of Hearing : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, Passed U/S.263 Of The Act In Case No.Pcit/Sbp/263/26/2018-19, Dated 29.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. Heard On The Question Of Condonation Of Delay 2. On Perusal Of The Record, We Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 686 Days. In This Regard, Ld. Ar Filed An Application Along With Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay, Wherein It Has Been Submitted That The Delay Occurred In Filing The Present Appeal Is Neither Intentional Nor Deliberate But Due To Unfortunate & Unavoidable Circumstances Beyond

delay in filing the appeal stands condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. Heard on the merits of the appeal 7. Now, we shall proceed to decide the appeal of the assessee challenging the order passed u/s.263 of the Act. 8. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the Pr.CIT has invoked his powers u/s.263

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

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

2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957)" 12. From the bare reading of all these three sections it may be seen that section 43CA deals with the valuation of all the assets other than capital assets and other provisions of section 50C are applicable. Section 55A can be invoked where estimation of fair market value

M/S. B.K. JENA & ASSOCIATES,KUJANG vs. PR. CIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. B.K.Jena & Associates, M/S. B.K.Jena & Associates, Vs. Pr. Cit, Cuttack Pr. Cit, Cuttack Rangiagarh, Rangiagarh, Jhimani, Jhimani, Kujang, Kujang, Jagatsinghpur Jagatsinghpur Pan/Gir No. No.Aagfb 4157 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty P.R.Mohanty, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit ( Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 16/9/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/ /9/2022 O R D E R Per Bench

section 254(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 categorically provides that “the Tribunal is to give both the parties to appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass P a g e 6 | 15 Assessment Year : 2014-15 such orders thereon as it thinks fit”. Admittedly, the Tribunal does have the power to condone the delay. The Tribunal being

M/S. BARIPADA URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.,BARIPADA vs. ACIT, BALASORE CIRCLE, BALASORE., BALASORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-2010 Baripada Urban Co-Operative Vs. Acit, Balasore Circle, Bank Ltd., At: Roxy Road, Balasore. Baripada Pan/Gir No. Aabat 2673 C (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

condone the delay of 179 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The assessee has filed additional grounds of appeal on 4.1.2016: ”1. For that notice u/s.143(2), neither was issued nor served on the appellant which is required in the statute and in absence of such notice, assessment made and orders

ORISSA AIR PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,DHENKANAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year : 2012-2013

condoned by the appropriate authorities and thus the contention of the Department was found to be without force and it was held that there was no reason to consider the amount as income from other sources of the assessee and the addition was deleted. It is submitted that the present matter is practically on the same footing as the employees

DEOKARAN DAS RAMBILASH,SUNDARGARH vs. ITA, WARD-04, , ROURKELA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicialassessment Year : 2010-2011 Deokaran Das Deokaran Das Rambilash, Old Vs. Ito, Ward -4, Station Road, Rourkela. Station Road, Rourkela. Rourkela. Pan/Gir No.Aadfd 9708 K Aadfd 9708 K (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agarwalla, Ar Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Dr Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/05/ 2021 1 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/06/20 /2021 O R D E R

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 5. Ld A.R. of the assessee did not press Ground No.1 of appeal. Therefore, this ground is dismissed as not pressed. P a g e 2 | 9 Assessment Year : 2010-2011 6. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee firm was engaged in the business of trading

PRASANNMANI COLLEGE OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION &YOGA,TIGIRIA vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2017-18 Prasannamani Prasannamani College College Of Of Vs. Ito (Exemption) Ito (Exemption) Physical Education & Yoga, Physical Education & Yoga, Cuttack At/Po: Tigiria, Dist: Cuttack At/Po: Tigiria, Dist: Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aacap 1478 J (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ar S.K.Sarangi, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 1/9 9/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 1/9 9/2022

14 of paper book. It was the submission that as the assessee has been granted the benefit of section 11(2) of the Act on account of the condonation of delay

SUBHALAXMI AGENCIES PVT. LTD.,NAYAGARH vs. JCIT, RAMGE-2, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and that of

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

14. Before us, ld A.R. of the assessee submitted that no disallowance of employee’s contribution to PF u/s.36(1)(va) was warranted where payments have been made by the assessee before the due date of filing the return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act and relied on following decisions: i) CIT vs Alom Extrusions

M/S. POWERWARE INDIA PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri N.S.Sainiआयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.206/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Powerware India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward-1(2), 6A, Zone-B, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar- 751010 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp 1607 R (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

condoned by the appropriate authorities and thus the contention of the Department was found to be without force and it was held that there was no reason to consider the amount as income from other sources of the assessee and the addition was deleted. It is submitted that the present matter is practically on the same footing as the employees

M/S. KALINGA INSTITUTE OF TRAINING FOR SECURITY & CONSULTANCY SERVICES,BALASORE vs. ITO, WARD-1, BALASORE

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

condoned by the appropriate authorities and thus the contention of the Department was found to be without force and it was held that there was no reason to consider the amount as income from other sources of the assessee and the addition was deleted. It is submitted that the present matter is practically on the same footing as the employees

M/S. KALINGA INSTITUTE OF TRAINING FOR SECURITY & CONSULTANCY SERVICES,BALASORE vs. ITO, WARD-1, BALASORE

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

condoned by the appropriate authorities and thus the contention of the Department was found to be without force and it was held that there was no reason to consider the amount as income from other sources of the assessee and the addition was deleted. It is submitted that the present matter is practically on the same footing as the employees

ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963 that whenever interpretation and construction before the Hon’ble High Court as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, then the Hon’ble Courts were unanimous in their 5 आयकर अपील सं/ITA Nos.496 to500 and 502 to 504/CTK/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2022-23) conclusion that

ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963 that whenever interpretation and construction before the Hon’ble High Court as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, then the Hon’ble Courts were unanimous in their 5 आयकर अपील सं/ITA Nos.496 to500 and 502 to 504/CTK/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2022-23) conclusion that

ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963 that whenever interpretation and construction before the Hon’ble High Court as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, then the Hon’ble Courts were unanimous in their 5 आयकर अपील सं/ITA Nos.496 to500 and 502 to 504/CTK/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2022-23) conclusion that

ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), , BHUBANEWSWAR

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963 that whenever interpretation and construction before the Hon’ble High Court as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, then the Hon’ble Courts were unanimous in their 5 आयकर अपील सं/ITA Nos.496 to500 and 502 to 504/CTK/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2022-23) conclusion that

ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963 that whenever interpretation and construction before the Hon’ble High Court as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, then the Hon’ble Courts were unanimous in their 5 आयकर अपील सं/ITA Nos.496 to500 and 502 to 504/CTK/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2022-23) conclusion that

ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963 that whenever interpretation and construction before the Hon’ble High Court as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, then the Hon’ble Courts were unanimous in their 5 आयकर अपील सं/ITA Nos.496 to500 and 502 to 504/CTK/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2022-23) conclusion that