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

KAPILDEV DUBEY,MAYURBHANJ vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2,BARIPADA, MAYURBHANJ

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

2. For that, learned CIT(A) has committed gross error of law as well as of fact in confirming the addition of deposit of old SBNs of Rs.14,76,500.00, made by the learned A.O., treating it as unexplained money by applying provisions of section 69A of the Act, ignoring the fact that, the Assessee has been running petrol pump

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

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), 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

SUJATA NAYAK,RAYAGADA vs. ITO, RAYAGADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2010-2011 2011 Smt.Sujata Sujata Nayak Nayak, W/O. Vs. Ito, Ito, Rayagada Rayagada Ward, Ward, Shri Lokanath Nayak, Omp Shri Lokanath Nayak, Omp Rayagada Road, Indira Nagar, 6Th Lane, Road, Indira Nagar, 6 Po;Dist: Rayagada Po;Dist: Rayagada Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Addpn 2024 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Archita Nayak, Ar : Ms Archita Nayak, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/01 01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/01 /01/2023 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), Berhampur, In Appeal No.0055/13 , Berhampur, In Appeal No.0055/13-14 Dated Dated 31.7.2014 For The Assessment Year Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. Ms Archita Nayak, Ms Archita Nayak, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue. S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

delay in filing of the appeal stands condoned and the appeal is being disposed off on merits. 7. It was submitted by ld AR that there are three issues in the appeal. The first issue was against the action of the ld CIT(A) in confirming the estimation of the profit at 8% by the Assessing Officer as against

M/S. PRAGATI MILK PRODUCT PVT. LTD.,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, all the appeals of the all the assessees are allowed

2. At the outset, on perusal of the record, we found that all the appeals of the assessees are barred by limitation of 525 days. Ld. AR of the assessee has filed an application along with affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons for delay mentioned therein. Ld. DR objected to condone the delay and submitted that no sufficient

M/S. PASUPATI BREEDING FARM PVT. LTD.,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, all the appeals of the all the assessees are allowed

2. At the outset, on perusal of the record, we found that all the appeals of the assessees are barred by limitation of 525 days. Ld. AR of the assessee has filed an application along with affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons for delay mentioned therein. Ld. DR objected to condone the delay and submitted that no sufficient

M/S. PRAKASH KUMAR ROUT,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, all the appeals of the all the assessees are allowed

2. At the outset, on perusal of the record, we found that all the appeals of the assessees are barred by limitation of 525 days. Ld. AR of the assessee has filed an application along with affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons for delay mentioned therein. Ld. DR objected to condone the delay and submitted that no sufficient

M/S. PRAKASH KUMAR ROUT,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, all the appeals of the all the assessees are allowed

2. At the outset, on perusal of the record, we found that all the appeals of the assessees are barred by limitation of 525 days. Ld. AR of the assessee has filed an application along with affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons for delay mentioned therein. Ld. DR objected to condone the delay and submitted that no sufficient