BACKBONE ARSS JV,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-4(3), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.81/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2012-2013) Hcil Adhikarya Arss Jv Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaefh 3757 R & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.82 & 112/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-2014 & 2012-2013) M/S Arss Atlanta Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaqfa 8726 P & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.83 & 113/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14 & 2012-13) M/S Arss Anpr Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aabaa 1158 M & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.84 & 116/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14 & 2012-13) M/S Arss Triveni Jv Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aabaa 1081 H & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.85/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14) M/S Arss-Gvr Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aacaa 1049 A & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.86 & 111/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-2014 & 2012-2013) M/S Niraj Arss Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaaan 5116 B

condone the delay in aforesaid appeals and all the appeals along with other appeals are heard on merits. 5. Though the assessees in all these appeals are different, however, issues involved in these appeals are common, therefore, they are heard altogether and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, we shall take

NIRAJ-ARSS JV,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.81/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2012-2013) Hcil Adhikarya Arss Jv Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaefh 3757 R & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.82 & 112/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-2014 & 2012-2013) M/S Arss Atlanta Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaqfa 8726 P & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.83 & 113/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14 & 2012-13) M/S Arss Anpr Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aabaa 1158 M & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.84 & 116/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14 & 2012-13) M/S Arss Triveni Jv Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aabaa 1081 H & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.85/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14) M/S Arss-Gvr Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aacaa 1049 A & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.86 & 111/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-2014 & 2012-2013) M/S Niraj Arss Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaaan 5116 B

condone the delay in aforesaid appeals and all the appeals along with other appeals are heard on merits. 5. Though the assessees in all these appeals are different, however, issues involved in these appeals are common, therefore, they are heard altogether and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, we shall take

ARSS TRIVENI JV,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.81/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2012-2013) Hcil Adhikarya Arss Jv Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaefh 3757 R & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.82 & 112/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-2014 & 2012-2013) M/S Arss Atlanta Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaqfa 8726 P & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.83 & 113/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14 & 2012-13) M/S Arss Anpr Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aabaa 1158 M & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.84 & 116/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14 & 2012-13) M/S Arss Triveni Jv Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aabaa 1081 H & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.85/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14) M/S Arss-Gvr Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aacaa 1049 A & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.86 & 111/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-2014 & 2012-2013) M/S Niraj Arss Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaaan 5116 B

condone the delay in aforesaid appeals and all the appeals along with other appeals are heard on merits. 5. Though the assessees in all these appeals are different, however, issues involved in these appeals are common, therefore, they are heard altogether and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, we shall take

ARSS-GVR JV,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-4(3), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.81/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2012-2013) Hcil Adhikarya Arss Jv Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaefh 3757 R & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.82 & 112/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-2014 & 2012-2013) M/S Arss Atlanta Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaqfa 8726 P & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.83 & 113/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14 & 2012-13) M/S Arss Anpr Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aabaa 1158 M & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.84 & 116/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14 & 2012-13) M/S Arss Triveni Jv Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aabaa 1081 H & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.85/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14) M/S Arss-Gvr Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aacaa 1049 A & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.86 & 111/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-2014 & 2012-2013) M/S Niraj Arss Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaaan 5116 B

condone the delay in aforesaid appeals and all the appeals along with other appeals are heard on merits. 5. Though the assessees in all these appeals are different, however, issues involved in these appeals are common, therefore, they are heard altogether and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, we shall take

PATEL-ARSS JV,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-4(3), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.81/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2012-2013) Hcil Adhikarya Arss Jv Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaefh 3757 R & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.82 & 112/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-2014 & 2012-2013) M/S Arss Atlanta Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaqfa 8726 P & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.83 & 113/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14 & 2012-13) M/S Arss Anpr Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aabaa 1158 M & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.84 & 116/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14 & 2012-13) M/S Arss Triveni Jv Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aabaa 1081 H & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.85/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14) M/S Arss-Gvr Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aacaa 1049 A & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.86 & 111/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-2014 & 2012-2013) M/S Niraj Arss Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaaan 5116 B

condone the delay in aforesaid appeals and all the appeals along with other appeals are heard on merits. 5. Though the assessees in all these appeals are different, however, issues involved in these appeals are common, therefore, they are heard altogether and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, we shall take

GRAM VIKAS TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, BERAMPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2014-

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay in filing of Form 10 under section 119(2)(b) of the Act.” II. ITA No.437/CTK/2024; AY 2015-16: “Ground No. 1: The learned CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer have erred in rejecting the petition filed under section 154 on 10/12/2016 for rectifying the intimation under section 143(1)(a) for disallowing deduction claimed under section

GRAM VIKAS TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. ITO,EXEMPTION WARD, BERAMPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2014-

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay in filing of Form 10 under section 119(2)(b) of the Act.” II. ITA No.437/CTK/2024; AY 2015-16: “Ground No. 1: The learned CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer have erred in rejecting the petition filed under section 154 on 10/12/2016 for rectifying the intimation under section 143(1)(a) for disallowing deduction claimed under section

M/S. NALCO MINES EMPLOYEES UNION,KORAPUT vs. PR.CIT-1, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is disposed off with the directions to the competent authority –ld

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Manish Boradassessment Years: 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Pramod Kumar Moharana, Vs. Pr. Cit-1, Bhubaneswar.Of Nalco Mines Employees‟ Union, At: D-9, Sector-1, Nalco Township, Damanjodi,Dist: Koraput Pan/Gir No.Aclpm 0589 M (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Basudev Panda, Sr. Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 27 /10/ 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order U/S.119(2)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Of The Pr. Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar For The Assessment Years 2012-13 To 2017-18. Application Of Applicant/Assessee For Condonation Of Delay :- 2. Ld. Senior Counsel On Application Dated 28.03.2021 Submitted That The Hon‟Ble High Court Of Orissa Was Pleased To Direct To File Appeal Before The Tribunal For Adjudication & The Matter Was Disposed Of Vide W.P.(C) No.24445/2020, Dated 05.01.2021 & I.A.No.250/2021 Vide Dated 17.03.2021 For Consideration Of Explanation Of Assessee For The Delay In P A G E 1 | 20 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2017-18

condonation of delay and separately furnished to be allowed in toto. I. For that the issue regarding population of the particular place since was already considered by competent authorities were accepted by the Hon'ble Tribunal as well as the Hon'ble Court and further scrutiny and review of the matter is beyond of the jurisdiction and competency

JEEVAN KALYANA SADHANA KENDRA,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, SAMBALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 119(2)(b) by which the powers delegated to the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax/Commissioner of Income Tax to condone the delay in filing Form 10B beyond 365 days up to 3 years from the assessment year 2018-19 or for subsequent year. Applying the said circular the learned Tribunal affirmed the order passed by the CIT (Appeals

CUTTACK MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, TDS-II, BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-2010

condone the delay of 303 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for hearing. Asse ssment Year : 20 09- 201 0 3. The sole issue involved in this appeal is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the demand of Rs.13,64,474/- raised u/s.201(1)/201(1A) of the Income

BAITARANI GRAMYA BANK,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, BALASORE

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

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

condone the delay of 127 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. Ground No.1 is general in nature and hence, requires no separate adjudication by us. 4. Ground No.4 of the appeal is not pressed by ld A.R. of the assessee, hence, same is dismissed as not pressed. 5. In Ground No.2

M/S. MAA TARINI INDUSTRIES LTD.,SUNDARGARH vs. PR. CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-2015

section 143(3).” P a g e 3 | 21 ITA No.2 92/CTK/201 9 Assessm ent Y ear : 20 14- 201 5 3. The appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 69 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition dated 11.9.2019 stating the reasons for filing the appeal late before the Tribunal. After considering the petition and considering

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

SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL,ROURKELA vs. ITO,WARD-2, ROURKELA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed partly

condone the delay and both appeals of the assessee are heard finally. 3. In both the appeals, the assessee has raised sole common ground with regard to confirming the addition made by the AO u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and derives income from trading in Iron

SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL,ROURKELA vs. ITO,WARD-2, ROURKELA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed partly

condone the delay and both appeals of the assessee are heard finally. 3. In both the appeals, the assessee has raised sole common ground with regard to confirming the addition made by the AO u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and derives income from trading in Iron

M/S. GOPAL AND COMPANY,ROURKELA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS/TCS), ROURKELA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

condone the delay of 38 days in filing the both the appeals. 3. The assessee has filed the following revised and précised grounds of appeal for A.Y.2016-2017 :- 1. For that the orders passed by Authorities below are not just and proper and are not in accordance of law under the acts and in the circumstances of the case, as such

M/S. GOPAL AND COMPANY,ROURKELA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS/TCS), ROURKELA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

condone the delay of 38 days in filing the both the appeals. 3. The assessee has filed the following revised and précised grounds of appeal for A.Y.2016-2017 :- 1. For that the orders passed by Authorities below are not just and proper and are not in accordance of law under the acts and in the circumstances of the case, as such

GOPI KRISHNA PANDA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2009-2010

condone the delay of 312 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. Ground No.1 of the appeal is general in nature and hence, requires no separate adjudication. 4. In Ground No.3 of the appeal, the grievance of the assessee is that the ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the action

LADI SRINIVAS RAO,RAYAGADA vs. ITO, RAYAGADA WARD, RAYAGADA, RAYAGADA

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

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year : 2009-2010

condone the delay of 202 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The first issue involved in this appeal is that the ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.4,56,000/- u/s.68 of the Act on account of alleged gift