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

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

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. SRB CONSULTANCY PVT. LTD., BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-2011

condone the delay of 29 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for hearing. 23. Ground No.1 of the appeal is general in nature and hence, requires no separate adjudication by us. 24. In Ground No.2 of the appeal, the grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance

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 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

29, Para 46 to 51. Further coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Sambalpur Vrs. M/s. Tarini Minerals Pvt Ltd. in ITA Nos- ITA Nos.268, 270 & 272/CTK/2020, vide order dated, 02/05/2022 have decided the identical issue in favour of the assessee. In another appeal the same Hori'ble Bench

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

29, Para 46 to 51. Further coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Sambalpur Vrs. M/s. Tarini Minerals Pvt Ltd. in ITA Nos- ITA Nos.268, 270 & 272/CTK/2020, vide order dated, 02/05/2022 have decided the identical issue in favour of the assessee. In another appeal the same Hori'ble Bench

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

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

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

2. ITA No. 260 & 270/CTK/2019 – 19 days 3. ITA Nos. 267, 266, 265, 259, 263/CTK/2019 – 29 days 4. ITA Nos. 268 & 269/CTK/2019 – 12 days 3. The assessee(s) has filed condonation petitions explaining delay in filing the above appeals stating, inter- alia, therein that due to consultation of sr. lawyer when the CCIT rejected the approval

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

2. ITA No. 260 & 270/CTK/2019 – 19 days 3. ITA Nos. 267, 266, 265, 259, 263/CTK/2019 – 29 days 4. ITA Nos. 268 & 269/CTK/2019 – 12 days 3. The assessee(s) has filed condonation petitions explaining delay in filing the above appeals stating, inter- alia, therein that due to consultation of sr. lawyer when the CCIT rejected the approval

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

2. ITA No. 260 & 270/CTK/2019 – 19 days 3. ITA Nos. 267, 266, 265, 259, 263/CTK/2019 – 29 days 4. ITA Nos. 268 & 269/CTK/2019 – 12 days 3. The assessee(s) has filed condonation petitions explaining delay in filing the above appeals stating, inter- alia, therein that due to consultation of sr. lawyer when the CCIT rejected the approval

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

2. ITA No. 260 & 270/CTK/2019 – 19 days 3. ITA Nos. 267, 266, 265, 259, 263/CTK/2019 – 29 days 4. ITA Nos. 268 & 269/CTK/2019 – 12 days 3. The assessee(s) has filed condonation petitions explaining delay in filing the above appeals stating, inter- alia, therein that due to consultation of sr. lawyer when the CCIT rejected the approval

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

2. ITA No. 260 & 270/CTK/2019 – 19 days 3. ITA Nos. 267, 266, 265, 259, 263/CTK/2019 – 29 days 4. ITA Nos. 268 & 269/CTK/2019 – 12 days 3. The assessee(s) has filed condonation petitions explaining delay in filing the above appeals stating, inter- alia, therein that due to consultation of sr. lawyer when the CCIT rejected the approval

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

2. ITA No. 260 & 270/CTK/2019 – 19 days 3. ITA Nos. 267, 266, 265, 259, 263/CTK/2019 – 29 days 4. ITA Nos. 268 & 269/CTK/2019 – 12 days 3. The assessee(s) has filed condonation petitions explaining delay in filing the above appeals stating, inter- alia, therein that due to consultation of sr. lawyer when the CCIT rejected the approval

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

2. ITA No. 260 & 270/CTK/2019 – 19 days 3. ITA Nos. 267, 266, 265, 259, 263/CTK/2019 – 29 days 4. ITA Nos. 268 & 269/CTK/2019 – 12 days 3. The assessee(s) has filed condonation petitions explaining delay in filing the above appeals stating, inter- alia, therein that due to consultation of sr. lawyer when the CCIT rejected the approval

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. DCIT, BERHAMPUR CIRCLE, BERHAMPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

2. ITA No. 260 & 270/CTK/2019 – 19 days 3. ITA Nos. 267, 266, 265, 259, 263/CTK/2019 – 29 days 4. ITA Nos. 268 & 269/CTK/2019 – 12 days 3. The assessee(s) has filed condonation petitions explaining delay in filing the above appeals stating, inter- alia, therein that due to consultation of sr. lawyer when the CCIT rejected the approval

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

2. ITA No. 260 & 270/CTK/2019 – 19 days 3. ITA Nos. 267, 266, 265, 259, 263/CTK/2019 – 29 days 4. ITA Nos. 268 & 269/CTK/2019 – 12 days 3. The assessee(s) has filed condonation petitions explaining delay in filing the above appeals stating, inter- alia, therein that due to consultation of sr. lawyer when the CCIT rejected the approval