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

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

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

M/S- SBEP-GRIL(JOINT VENTURE),JHARSUGUDA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

condone the delay and admit all the three appeals for adjudication. 4. Since similar and identical issues involved in all the three appeals of the assessees, therefore they are heard altogether and disposed off by this consolidated order en masse. 5. Ld. Assessee‟s Representative (AR) drew our attention towards two paper books of the assessee spread over 475 pages

M/S- RAWAT BALAJI (JOINT VENTURE),JHARSUGUDA vs. PRILNCIPAL, CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

condone the delay and admit all the three appeals for adjudication. 4. Since similar and identical issues involved in all the three appeals of the assessees, therefore they are heard altogether and disposed off by this consolidated order en masse. 5. Ld. Assessee‟s Representative (AR) drew our attention towards two paper books of the assessee spread over 475 pages

SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD,JHARSUGUDA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

condone the delay and admit all the three appeals for adjudication. 4. Since similar and identical issues involved in all the three appeals of the assessees, therefore they are heard altogether and disposed off by this consolidated order en masse. 5. Ld. Assessee‟s Representative (AR) drew our attention towards two paper books of the assessee spread over 475 pages

COMMISSIONER, CUTTACK MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,CUTTACK vs. ITO(TDS), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.83/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015) Commissioner, Vs Ito (Tds), Cuttack Cuttack Municipal Corporation, Choudhury Bazar, Dist: Cuttack Tan No. :Bbnc 00195 G (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra & Sanjeev Swain, Advs राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Cuttack, Dated 31.10.2019, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0398/2015- 16 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Delayed By 25 Days For Which The Assessee Has Filed Necessary Application For Condonation Of Delay & The Affidavit. The Reason For Delay Is Mentioned To Be On Account Of Urinary Infection & High Blood Pressure & The Consequential Medical Treatment. The Affidavit Filed By The Assessee Has Not Been Controverted By The Revenue. Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Present Appeal Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Disposed Off On Merits. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Issue In The Appeal Was Against Holding The Assessee As An Assessee In Default For Non-Deduction

delay in filing the present appeal is condoned and the appeal is disposed off on merits. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the issue in the appeal was against holding the assessee as an assessee in default for non-deduction 2 of tax u/s.194C of the Act on the payments made to Odisha State Police Housing & Welfare

JAMUNA REALTY PVT. LTD. ,CUTTACK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed with the direction to the AO herein given above

201. Others income Taxation of other income, which includes interest income is taken care in A.Y 2016-17 and taxation of the same in A.Y. 2015-16 would amount to double taxation and more tax of Rs.1,90,282/- has been paid and hence, there is no loss to revenue. 6. None of these submissions impressed the learned Pr. Commissioner

VAIBHAV RONOKA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-4(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Before Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicialassessment Year : 2012-2013 2013 Vaibhav Raonka Vaibhav Raonka, C/O. Hardware Vs. Ito, Ward 4(1), Bhubaneswar. Ito, Ward 4(1), Bhubaneswar. Junction, Junction, Plot Plot No.49, No.49, Ashok Ashok Nagar, Janpath, Bhubaneswar. Nagar, Janpath, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. No.Aixpr 3837 M (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agarwal S.K.Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri J.K.Lenka , Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/12/ 201 / 2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/1 12/ 2019 O R D E R

201 / 2019 Date of Pronouncement : 31/1 12/ 2019 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A),2, Bhubaneswar , Bhubaneswar dated

BIJAY BRATA KUNDU,BANGALORE vs. ITO, WARD- 3(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year : 2013-2014

Delay of 136 days is condoned keeping in view bonafide cause stated in the application. 2. The only grievance in this appeal is that the ld CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.3,26,124/- levied by the AO u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. At the time of hearing

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. SRI BAJRANG KUMAR AGRAWAL, SUNDARGARH

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2009-2010

201 0 (iv) The CIT (Appeals) ought to have followed the decisions of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of CIT vs. Chandulal (152 ITR 238) & Srinivasa Pitty & Sons vs. CIT (173 ITR 306). (v) The CIT (Appeals) ought to have held that the case of SSA's Emeralds Meadow vs. CIT (2016) 73 taxmann.com