PARADIP PORT AUTHORITY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 263 of the Act that the order should be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue is not met. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned PCIT failed to consider the submissions filed by the 2 ITA Nos.208-210/CTK/2024 assessee during revision proceedings wherein the assessee submitted revised computation of income

PARADIP PORT AUTHORITY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 263 of the Act that the order should be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue is not met. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned PCIT failed to consider the submissions filed by the 2 ITA Nos.208-210/CTK/2024 assessee during revision proceedings wherein the assessee submitted revised computation of income

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

1. There is a delay of 315 days in filing of present appeal. The revision order u/s.263 was received by the appellant on 05.04.2019 and as such the appeal was required to be filed on 04.06.2019. The appeal was filed on 20th April, 2021 resulting in a delay of 315 days. In the application for condonation of delay

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE- 1(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. GRID CORPORATION OF ORISSA LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.34 & 35/Ctk/2019 2019 Assessment Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014 14 & 2014-15 M/S. Grid Corporation Of M/S. Grid Corporation Of Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle -1(1), Orissa Ltd., Gridco House, Orissa Ltd., Gridco House, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Janpath, Bhubaneswar Janpath, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabcg 5398 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

condone the delay of 269 days and admit the appeals for hearing on merits. 4. It was submitted by ld AR that for the assessment year 2013-14, the original assessment came to be completed u/s.143(3) on 19.2.2016 and for assessment year 2014-15 on 26.2.2016. For the assessment year 2013-14, the Pr. CIT initiated proceedings u/s.263

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE- 1(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. GRID CORPORATION OF ORISSA LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.34 & 35/Ctk/2019 2019 Assessment Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014 14 & 2014-15 M/S. Grid Corporation Of M/S. Grid Corporation Of Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle -1(1), Orissa Ltd., Gridco House, Orissa Ltd., Gridco House, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Janpath, Bhubaneswar Janpath, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabcg 5398 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

condone the delay of 269 days and admit the appeals for hearing on merits. 4. It was submitted by ld AR that for the assessment year 2013-14, the original assessment came to be completed u/s.143(3) on 19.2.2016 and for assessment year 2014-15 on 26.2.2016. For the assessment year 2013-14, the Pr. CIT initiated proceedings u/s.263

M/S. GRID CORPORATION OF ORISSA LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANSWAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.34 & 35/Ctk/2019 2019 Assessment Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014 14 & 2014-15 M/S. Grid Corporation Of M/S. Grid Corporation Of Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle -1(1), Orissa Ltd., Gridco House, Orissa Ltd., Gridco House, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Janpath, Bhubaneswar Janpath, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabcg 5398 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

condone the delay of 269 days and admit the appeals for hearing on merits. 4. It was submitted by ld AR that for the assessment year 2013-14, the original assessment came to be completed u/s.143(3) on 19.2.2016 and for assessment year 2014-15 on 26.2.2016. For the assessment year 2013-14, the Pr. CIT initiated proceedings u/s.263

M/S GRID CORPORATION OF ORISSA LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.34 & 35/Ctk/2019 2019 Assessment Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014 14 & 2014-15 M/S. Grid Corporation Of M/S. Grid Corporation Of Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle -1(1), Orissa Ltd., Gridco House, Orissa Ltd., Gridco House, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Janpath, Bhubaneswar Janpath, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabcg 5398 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

condone the delay of 269 days and admit the appeals for hearing on merits. 4. It was submitted by ld AR that for the assessment year 2013-14, the original assessment came to be completed u/s.143(3) on 19.2.2016 and for assessment year 2014-15 on 26.2.2016. For the assessment year 2013-14, the Pr. CIT initiated proceedings u/s.263

M/S. GRID CORPORATION OF ORISSA LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANSWAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.34 & 35/Ctk/2019 2019 Assessment Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014 14 & 2014-15 M/S. Grid Corporation Of M/S. Grid Corporation Of Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle -1(1), Orissa Ltd., Gridco House, Orissa Ltd., Gridco House, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Janpath, Bhubaneswar Janpath, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabcg 5398 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

condone the delay of 269 days and admit the appeals for hearing on merits. 4. It was submitted by ld AR that for the assessment year 2013-14, the original assessment came to be completed u/s.143(3) on 19.2.2016 and for assessment year 2014-15 on 26.2.2016. For the assessment year 2013-14, the Pr. CIT initiated proceedings u/s.263

M/S. GRID CORPORATION OF ORISSA LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANSWAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.34 & 35/Ctk/2019 2019 Assessment Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014 14 & 2014-15 M/S. Grid Corporation Of M/S. Grid Corporation Of Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle -1(1), Orissa Ltd., Gridco House, Orissa Ltd., Gridco House, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Janpath, Bhubaneswar Janpath, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabcg 5398 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

condone the delay of 269 days and admit the appeals for hearing on merits. 4. It was submitted by ld AR that for the assessment year 2013-14, the original assessment came to be completed u/s.143(3) on 19.2.2016 and for assessment year 2014-15 on 26.2.2016. For the assessment year 2013-14, the Pr. CIT initiated proceedings u/s.263

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

condone the delay of 69 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. Facts in brief are that the assessee derives income from manufacturing of iron & steel. The assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 30.12.2016 accepting the returned income of Rs.1,43,94,360/-. Thereafter, on perusal of 26AS statement, the Pr. CIT observed that the assessee

M/S. B.K. JENA & ASSOCIATES,KUJANG vs. PR. CIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. B.K.Jena & Associates, M/S. B.K.Jena & Associates, Vs. Pr. Cit, Cuttack Pr. Cit, Cuttack Rangiagarh, Rangiagarh, Jhimani, Jhimani, Kujang, Kujang, Jagatsinghpur Jagatsinghpur Pan/Gir No. No.Aagfb 4157 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty P.R.Mohanty, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit ( Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 16/9/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/ /9/2022 O R D E R Per Bench

condone the delay. 8. On merits, ld AR drew our attention to the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 27.12.2016 at para 1 of the assessment order to submit that this was a case of “Limited Scrutiny” under CASS. It was the submission that in the limited scrutiny, the notice issued u/s.142(1) categorically asked

SMT. MAMTA SHARMA,BARGARH vs. PRINCIPAL CIT (CENTRAL) , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shrichandra Mohan Garg & Manish Boradassessment Year :2012-13 Smt. Mamta Sharma, Ward Vs. Pr. Cit(Central), Visakhapatnam No.10, Near Govt. Bus Stand, Dist: Baragarh Pan/Gir No.Agvps 4382 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21/10/ 2021 Date Of Pronouncement :10/12/2021 O R D E R

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. The assessee has raised the revised corrected grounds of appeal, which read as under; “1. For that, impugned order passed U/s.263 of the Act is without jurisdiction and without the authority of law, as the conditions for initiation of 263 proceedings are not fulfilled, as such, the impugned

DHANESWAR RATH INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND MEDICAL SCIENCES,CUTTACK vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

condone the delay of 198 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. The sole grievance raised in the grounds of appeal is that the CIT(Exemptions), Hyderabad has passed the revision order u/s.263 of the Act, in a hurriedly manner without providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 6. Facts of the case are that the assessee

BHAVENDRA HASMUKHLAL PATADIA. LEGAL HEIR OF HASMUKHLAL PATADIA.,CUTTACK vs. ITO WARD-!(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.125/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Bhavendra Hasmukhlal Patadia, Vs Ito, Ward-1(1), Cuttack Legal Heir Of Hasmukhlal Patadia, Nayabazar, Chauliaganj, Cuttack-753004 Pan No. :Adapp 6256 G (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Pr.Cit, Cuttack, Passed In Itba/Com/F/17/2019-20/1026790827(1), Dated 19.03.2020, For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. Head On The Question Of Condonation Of Delay 2. On Perusal Of The Appeal Record, It Is Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 784 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Dated 11.07.2022 Along With Affidavit Stating Therein That Due To Continuous Lockdown On Account Of Spread Of Covid-19, The Assessee Could Not File The Present Appeal In Time, Therefore, He Prayed That Delay Of 784 Days In Filing The Present Appeal May Kindly Be Condoned. On The Other Hand, Ld. Cit-Dr Did Not Object To The Above Submission Of The Ld. Ar. Considering The Above, We Condone

1), dated 19.03.2020, for the assessment year 2015-2016. Head on the question of condonation of delay 2. On perusal of the appeal record, it is found that the appeal of the assessee is barred by 784 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay dated 11.07.2022 along with affidavit stating therein that

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

1) of the Act were issued and in response thereto, the assessee furnished all details/documents/accounts for verification and same were verified and examined by the AO. Thereafter, assessment u/s.143(3) was completed accepting the returned income. He submitted that the assessee company followed the project completion method recognised by Revenue AS-7 since its inception. He submitted that

SANGRAM KESHARI SAMANTARAY,BHUBANESWAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, BHUBANESWAR

condone the delay of 224 days in filing the present appeal and the appeal is heard on merits. 4. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. That the order passed by the Learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Bhubaneswar u/s 263 of the LT. Act, 1961 is excessive, arbitrary and bad in law. 2. That

HI-TECH ESTATES & PROMOTERS PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Hi-Tech Estates & Promoters Pvt Tech Estates & Promoters Pvt Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-1(1), Ltd., Plot No Ltd., Plot No-A/103, Saheed Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. No.Aaach 9591 G (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.D.Ojha, Ar , Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 24/5/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 24 / /5/2022 O R D E R Per A.K.Khodpia, Am A.K.Khodpia, Am

1 under section 263 of the Act for the assessment year 2016-17. . 2. The appeal is time barred by 93 days. The assessee has filed The appeal is time barred by 93 days. The assessee has filed The appeal is time barred by 93 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition to condone the delay

ABHIMANYU SAHU,BUXIPALLI vs. PCIT-1,, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Abhimanyu Sahu, Buxipalli, Abhimanyu Sahu, Buxipalli, Vs. Pr. Cit-1, Gopalpur On Sea. Gopalpur On Sea. Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aokps 4011 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.N.Dave, Ca P.N.Dave, Ca Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 24 /0 03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 24 /0 /03/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Against The Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Act 263 Of The Act Of The Ld Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar-1 Dated Dated 10.3.2021 In Appeal No. Itba/Rev/ V/F/Rev5/2020-21/1031385941(1) For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Shri P.N.Dave, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri P.N.Dave, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri P.N.Dave, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Pr. Cit(Osd) Appeared For The Revenue. M.K.Gautam, Ld Pr. Cit(Osd) Appeared For The Revenue. M.K.Gautam, Ld Pr. Cit(Osd) Appeared For The Revenue.

condone the delay of 296 days in filing the appeal by the assessee and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. It was submitted by ld AR that the original assessment came to be completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 27.12.2018. The assessment was a ‘Limited Scrutiny assessment’ and in the assessment of ‘limited scrutiny’ the issue was whether contract