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

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

delay when there was no prayer for such condonation. The relevant provision in that regard is contained in s. 253(5) of the I.T. Act, 1961, which provides that the Appellate Tribunal may admit the appeal or permit the filing of a memorandum of cross-objections after the expiry of the relevant period referred to in sub-s. (3

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.

253 of income Tax Act. one of the considerations for this decision : period of delay [perfect circle India Ltd' v. ACIT (2020) 120 taxmann.com 262 (Bom) following cenzure industries Ltd' v. rro (Notice of Motion No.492 and 493 of 2015 dt.15.1.2016 (Bom). The fact about the delay period in the present case is more than 7 years and 9 months

MR. NARENDRA KUMA RBAL,KEONJHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KEONJHAR WARD, KEONJHAR

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

3. That the delay made in filing of the Second Appeal is not deliberate or negligence or any malafide intention and there was genuine hardship involved for not filing the said Appeal in time. Further, it may be taken into consideration that the Appellant has no benefit by resorting to delay in filing the Second Appeal, hence delay may kindly

SAHOO DISTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASSTT.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view and condone delay in filing of appeals before the ld CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. 16. As the assessee had not cooperated during the assessment proceedings as well as during the first appellate

SAHOO DISTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASST,CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , AAYAKAR BHAWAN

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view and condone delay in filing of appeals before the ld CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. 16. As the assessee had not cooperated during the assessment proceedings as well as during the first appellate

SAHOO DISTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASST.CIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, AAYAKAR BHAWAN,SHELTER SQUARE,

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view and condone delay in filing of appeals before the ld CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. 16. As the assessee had not cooperated during the assessment proceedings as well as during the first appellate

SAHOO DIOSTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASSTT.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view and condone delay in filing of appeals before the ld CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. 16. As the assessee had not cooperated during the assessment proceedings as well as during the first appellate

SAHOO DISTRIBNUTORS (P) LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASSTT. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view and condone delay in filing of appeals before the ld CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. 16. As the assessee had not cooperated during the assessment proceedings as well as during the first appellate

SAHOO DISTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASSTT. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view and condone delay in filing of appeals before the ld CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. 16. As the assessee had not cooperated during the assessment proceedings as well as during the first appellate

SAHOO DISTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASSTT. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view and condone delay in filing of appeals before the ld CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. 16. As the assessee had not cooperated during the assessment proceedings as well as during the first appellate

SAHOO DISTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASSTT. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view and condone delay in filing of appeals before the ld CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. 16. As the assessee had not cooperated during the assessment proceedings as well as during the first appellate

DREAM INDIA TRANSFORMATION,NABARANGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, BERHAMPUR

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

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 253 of the Act; (b) Admit and hear the accompanying appeal on merits; and (c) Pass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 1.1 Considering the reasons given in the said petition, the delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. The present

BHAIRABI CLUB AOP,KURUMPADA,HADAPADA,KHORDHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2016-17 Bhairabi Club, Kurumpada, Bhairabi Club, Kurumpada, Vs. Cit (A), Nfac, Delhi Cit (A), Nfac, Delhi Po: Hadapada, Dist: Khurda Po: Hadapada, Dist: Khurda Pan/Gir No. No.Aaaab 3606 N (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Adv J.M.Pattnaik, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/8 8/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/8 /8/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

3. The appeal is barred by limitation by 253 days. The assessee has The appeal is barred by limitation by 253 days. The assessee has The appeal is barred by limitation by 253 days. The assessee has filed condonation filed condonation petition supported by affidavit, stating the reasons that petition supported by affidavit, stating the reasons that

SAHOO DISTRIBUTEERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

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

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view and condone delay in filing of appeals before the ld CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. 16. As the assessee had not cooperated during the assessment proceedings as well as during the first appellate

S.B. COMBINE,CUTTACK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK, CUTTACK

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

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumar

section 271(1)(c) of the Act and penalty under section271(1)(b) of the Act. 2. At the time of hearing, ld AR of the assessee submitted that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. It was the submission that there was delay of 253

S.B. COMBINE,CUTTACK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK, CUTTACK

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

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumar

section 271(1)(c) of the Act and penalty under section271(1)(b) of the Act. 2. At the time of hearing, ld AR of the assessee submitted that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. It was the submission that there was delay of 253

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

STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ODISHA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARAD 5(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed and stay petition stands dismissed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwals.P.No.11/Ctk/2024 Assessment Year :2017-18 State Pollution Control Board State Pollution Control Board, Vs. Ito, Ward 5(2), Plot No.A-118, Paribesh Bhawan, 118, Paribesh Bhawan, Bhubaneswar Nilakantha Nagar, Agar, Nayapali, Nayapali, Unit-Vii, Bhubaneswar Neswar Pan/Gir No.Aaals 2490 J Aaals 2490 J (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agrawalla, Ca Walla, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/10/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/10/20 024 O R D E R Per Bench

condonation of delay for not filing of its return of income within the statutory time limit, before the CBDT u/s 119(2)(b) of Income Tax Act, which has expressed provision for admission of claim of any exemption after the expiry of the period specified in the Income Tax Act. 2.4.2 In view of the above, it is humbly submitted