BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

37 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 253(6)(d)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai277Chennai217Indore181Delhi166Ahmedabad144Karnataka139Kolkata124Jaipur112Surat105Bangalore101Lucknow68Chandigarh54Cochin44Pune39Panaji39Cuttack37Rajkot29Allahabad27Hyderabad27Nagpur25Patna24Varanasi18Raipur14Jodhpur11Guwahati11Visakhapatnam10Ranchi9Jabalpur8Amritsar6SC4Telangana2Dehradun1Andhra Pradesh1Rajasthan1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 1042Section 14721Charitable Trust14Penalty12Section 14810Reassessment10Limitation/Time-bar10Condonation of Delay9Section 270A

RAVI METALLICS LIMITED,ROURKELA vs. PR.CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 34/CTK/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaravi Metallics Limited, I/10, Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan No.Adqps 4031 G ………………Assessee Versus Pr.Cit, Sambalpur ………………..Revenue Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ar For The Assessee Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr For The Revenue Date Of Hearing : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, Passed U/S.263 Of The Act In Case No.Pcit/Sbp/263/26/2018-19, Dated 29.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. Heard On The Question Of Condonation Of Delay 2. On Perusal Of The Record, We Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 686 Days. In This Regard, Ld. Ar Filed An Application Along With Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay, Wherein It Has Been Submitted That The Delay Occurred In Filing The Present Appeal Is Neither Intentional Nor Deliberate But Due To Unfortunate & Unavoidable Circumstances Beyond

Section 253Section 263

D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Pr.CIT, Sambalpur, passed u/s.263 of the Act in case No.PCIT/SBP/263/26/2018-19, dated 29.03.2019 for the assessment year 2014-2015. Heard on the question of condonation of delay 2. On perusal of the record, we found that the appeal of the assessee

Showing 1–20 of 37 · Page 1 of 2

8
Section 272A(1)(d)8
Section 271D8
Section 2638

SANDHYA MALLICK ,KENDRAPADA vs. ITO, WARD- 2(2), BHUBANESWAR

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

ITA 172/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack07 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2014-15 Sandhya Mallick, At: Andhara, Sandhya Mallick, At: Andhara, Vs. Ito, Ward 2(2), Bhubaneswar. Ito, Ward 2(2), Bhubaneswar. Pattamumndai, Dist: Kendrapara Pattamumndai, Dist: Kendrapara Pan/Gir No. No.Axwpm 2241 A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bal, Advocate K.K.Bal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sovesh Chandra Mohanty, Sr Sovesh Chandra Mohanty, Sr (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 02 /3/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/ /3/2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg G, Jm 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),1, Bhubaneswar Cit(A),1, Bhubaneswar Dated 24.9.2018 For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 627 Days. The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Is Time Barred By 627 Days. The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Is Time Barred By 627 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Dated 5.8.2020 Condonation Petition Dated 5.8.2020 Supported By An Affidavit Sworn By The Supported By An Affidavit Sworn By The Assessee, Wherein, It Is Stated As Under: , Wherein, It Is Stated As Under:

For Appellant: Shri K.K.Bal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sovesh Chandra Mohanty, Sr

D E R Per C.M.Garg g, JM 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),1, Bhubaneswar CIT(A),1, Bhubaneswar dated 24.9.2018 for the assessment year

M/S ZERINA MARINE (P) LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DY. CIT CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR

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

ITA 115/CTK/2022[1998-99]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack17 Nov 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.115/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :1998-1999) M/S Zerina Marines (P) Ltd., Vs Dcit, Circle-1, Bhubaneswar At-67, Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar Pan No. :Aaacz 2200 N (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Subit Sahoo, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 253(5)

D E R Per Bench : This an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-II, Bhubaneswar, dated 21.05.2003 passed in I.T.Appeal No.0002/02-03 for the assessment year 1998-1999. Heard on the adjournment application: 2. The ld. AR of the assessee has filed an adjournment letter saying that he needs more time to prepare

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

ITA 178/CTK/2025[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack28 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250

6 SOT 497 (Mumbai) laid down the following proposition on power of Tribunal to condone delay: "The expression 'sufficient cause or reason' as provided in sub-s. (5) of s. 253 of the Act is used in identical position in the Limitation Act, 1963 and the CPC. Such expression has also been used in other sections

TAPAN KUMAR SETHY,CUTTACK vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), CUTTACK

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

ITA 227/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 Tapan Kumar Sethy Vs. Ito, Ward-2(4), Purighat Road, Telenga Bazar , Cuttack Cuttack- 753009 Pan/Gir No. Blzps 1048 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudhanshu Kr Das, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prateek Kr Mishra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02 /07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02 /07/2025 O R D E R Per Bench The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nafc), New Delhi Nfac), Delhi Dated 15/06/2022 In Appeal No.Cit(A), Cuttack/10917/2019-20 Passed For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 952 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Dated 7.4.2025 Supported With Affidavit Stating The Reasons That Due To Serious Illness Of The Assessee’S Mother & Change Of P A G E 1 | 5 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sudhanshu Kr Das, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Kr Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 253(3)

D E R Per Bench The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NAFC), New Delhi NFAC), Delhi dated 15/06/2022 in Appeal No.CIT(A), Cuttack/10917/2019-20 passed for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The appeal is time barred by 952 days. The assessee has filed

SUJATA NAYAK,RAYAGADA vs. ITO, RAYAGADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 151/CTK/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack19 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

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.

For Appellant: Ms Archita Nayak, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr
Section 143(3)

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

SULTAN ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD,,SUNDARPADA, BHUBANESWAR vs. PR. CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 29/CTK/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack26 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Ramit Kocharassessment Year : 2015-16 Sultan Enterprises Pvt Ltd., Sultan Enterprises Pvt Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar-1 At:Plot No.161, Azad Nagar, At:Plot No.161, Azad Nagar, Sundarpada, Bhubaneswar. Sundarpada, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aascs 1016 R (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth Ray, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

D E R Per George Mathan, JM George Mathan, JM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order u/s.263 of the Act passed by the Act passed by the ld Pr. CIT, Bhubaneswar-1 dated

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

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

ITA 341/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 144Section 250Section 253

D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. In this case, there is a delay of 308 days has been reported by the ITAT Registry, for which a petition has been filed as under: “For Delay of 521 Days in Filing Appeal under Section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 1. That the present Appeal is being preferred

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

ITA 7/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Mishra/Himansu Jena/Narahari SwainFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Shri S.C.Mohant
Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271DSection 272A(1)(d)

d) of the Act that the appeals were not filed before the ld CIT(A) within the due date, therefore, there was delay of 430 days, 433 days and 433 days for the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20. 10. Similarly, in regard to penalty order u/s 270A, for the assessment year 2018-19, the appeal

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

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

ITA 2/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Mishra/Himansu Jena/Narahari SwainFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Shri S.C.Mohant
Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271DSection 272A(1)(d)

d) of the Act that the appeals were not filed before the ld CIT(A) within the due date, therefore, there was delay of 430 days, 433 days and 433 days for the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20. 10. Similarly, in regard to penalty order u/s 270A, for the assessment year 2018-19, the appeal

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

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

ITA 5/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Mishra/Himansu Jena/Narahari SwainFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Shri S.C.Mohant
Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271DSection 272A(1)(d)

d) of the Act that the appeals were not filed before the ld CIT(A) within the due date, therefore, there was delay of 430 days, 433 days and 433 days for the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20. 10. Similarly, in regard to penalty order u/s 270A, for the assessment year 2018-19, the appeal

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

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

ITA 6/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Mishra/Himansu Jena/Narahari SwainFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Shri S.C.Mohant
Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271DSection 272A(1)(d)

d) of the Act that the appeals were not filed before the ld CIT(A) within the due date, therefore, there was delay of 430 days, 433 days and 433 days for the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20. 10. Similarly, in regard to penalty order u/s 270A, for the assessment year 2018-19, the appeal

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

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

ITA 3/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Mishra/Himansu Jena/Narahari SwainFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Shri S.C.Mohant
Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271DSection 272A(1)(d)

d) of the Act that the appeals were not filed before the ld CIT(A) within the due date, therefore, there was delay of 430 days, 433 days and 433 days for the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20. 10. Similarly, in regard to penalty order u/s 270A, for the assessment year 2018-19, the appeal

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

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

ITA 1/CTK/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Mishra/Himansu Jena/Narahari SwainFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Shri S.C.Mohant
Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271DSection 272A(1)(d)

d) of the Act that the appeals were not filed before the ld CIT(A) within the due date, therefore, there was delay of 430 days, 433 days and 433 days for the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20. 10. Similarly, in regard to penalty order u/s 270A, for the assessment year 2018-19, the appeal

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

ITA 8/CTK/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Mishra/Himansu Jena/Narahari SwainFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Shri S.C.Mohant
Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271DSection 272A(1)(d)

d) of the Act that the appeals were not filed before the ld CIT(A) within the due date, therefore, there was delay of 430 days, 433 days and 433 days for the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20. 10. Similarly, in regard to penalty order u/s 270A, for the assessment year 2018-19, the appeal

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

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

ITA 4/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Mishra/Himansu Jena/Narahari SwainFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Shri S.C.Mohant
Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271DSection 272A(1)(d)

d) of the Act that the appeals were not filed before the ld CIT(A) within the due date, therefore, there was delay of 430 days, 433 days and 433 days for the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20. 10. Similarly, in regard to penalty order u/s 270A, for the assessment year 2018-19, the appeal

SRI AJAY KUMAR MISHRA,BADAMBA vs. ITO WARD-2(5), CUTTACK

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

ITA 113/CTK/2022[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack17 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.113/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Sri Ajay Kumar Mishra, Vs Ito, Ward-2(5), Cuttack Badamba, Cuttack-754021 Pan No. :Agepm 6163 C (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Somanath Sahoo, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 253(5)

D E R Per Bench : This an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 18.04.2022 passed in DIN & Order No.:ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1042758677(1) for the assessment year 2014-2015. 2. It was submitted by the ld. AR of the assessee that the assessee had filed appeal against

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

ITA 63/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Kr. Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 270

D E R Per Bench The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bhubaneswar-2, dated 30/11/2024 in Appeal No. CIT(A), Bhubaneswar-2/10524/2016-17 passed for Assessment Year 2017-18, confirming the penalty levied u/s.270 of the Act on the ground of limitation. 2. It was submitted

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 186/CTK/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack13 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr
Section 143(1)Section 154

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), NFAC, Delhi dated CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 14.6.2023 in Appeal

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

ITA 41/CTK/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Ku. Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

D E R Per Bench The present appeals are directed at the instance of assessee against the separate orders of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NAFC), New Delhi NFAC), Delhi all dated 30/11/2024 in Appeal Nos. NFAC/2014-15/10191405, NFAC/2014- 15/10191407, NFAC/2014-15/10191481 passed for Assessment Year 2015- P a g e 1 | 4 ITA No.41/CTK/2025 Assessment Year