DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

condone\nthe delay and admit the appeal for hearing.\n3. As the facts and circumstances are similar in ITA Nos. 179 &\n181/CTK/2020, hence, for brevity we will take ITA No.179/CTK/2020\nfor A.Y. 2009-10 and decide the issues accordingly.\nΑ.Υ. 2009-10\nITA No. 179/СТК/2020\n4. The first issue raised by the Revenue in ground nos. 1

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

condone\nthe delay and admit the appeal for hearing.\n3. As the facts and circumstances are similar in ITA Nos. 179 &\n181/CTK/2020, hence, for brevity we will take ITA No.179/CTK/2020\nfor A.Y. 2009-10 and decide the issues accordingly.\nΑ.Υ. 2009-10\nITA No. 179/СТК/2020\n4. The first issue raised by the Revenue in ground nos. 1

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

B.B.KAR,ROURKELA vs. ITO WARD-1, ROURKELA

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2018-19 B.B.Kar, F-4, Civil Township, 4, Civil Township, Vs. Ito, Ward Ito, Ward-1, Rourkela Rourkela Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aaefb 9122 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena Sandeep Kumar Jena, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/0 04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/0 /04/2024 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), Nfac, Delhi Dated Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 9.12.2022 In Appeal No. In Appeal No. Cit(A), Sambalpur/10032/2020 Sambalpur/10032/2020-21 For The Assessment Year 2018 2018-19. 2. Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena Sandeep Kumar Jena, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri D Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr. Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

condone the delay of 103 days and admit the appeal for hearing. 4. The only issued involved in this appeal is against confirmation of addition of Rs.4,32,371/- u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act. 5. It was submitted by ld Sr DR that the issue involved in this appeal is delayed payment of PF and ESI in respect

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.

36 and courier copy enclosed) That thereafter the appellant has decided to apply for VIVAD SE VISHWAS SCHEME 2020 and filed Form 1 and 2 under VIVAD SE VISWAS SCHEME 2020. Appellant has received Form 3 from the Pr. CIT, Sambalpur and as per the direction of Pr. CIT, Sambalpur, Appellant has deposited the amount and filed Form

SRI NIRMAL CHANDRA PADHIARY,BALASORE vs. ACIT, BALASORE CIRCLE, BALASORE

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

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.157/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Sri Nirmal Chandra Padhiary, Vs Acit, Balasore Circle, Balasore Bampada, Chhanpur, Birla Tyre Road, Balasore-756056 Pan No. :Acupp 0872 B (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Mr. Somanath Sahoo, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 25.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1049108098(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Time Barred By 35 Days. In This Regard, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Has Filed An Application Along With Affidavit Of The Assessee For Condonation Of The Delay, To Which The Ld. Sr. Dr Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection To Condone The Delay. On Perusal Of The Application & The Affidavit Of The Assessee, We Found That The Delay Occurred Due To Bonafide Reasons. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay Of 35 Days In Filing The Appeal & Appeal Is Disposed Off Finally. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That Two Additions Are Challenged In This Appeal, One Is Against The Disallowance Of Pf & Esi Paid Belatedly

condone the delay of 35 days in filing the appeal and appeal is disposed off finally. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that two additions are challenged in this appeal, one is against the disallowance of PF & ESI paid belatedly 2 and second is against the addition representing the peak credit of the undisclosed bank accounts. 4. With

M/S. GORAKHNATH CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,ROURKELA vs. ACIT, ROURKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.235 & 236/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014 14 & 2014-15 Gorakhnath Gorakhnath Construction Construction Vs. Dcit, Circle, Rourkela Dcit, Circle, Rourkela Pvt.Ltd., E-42, 42, Koel Koel Nagar, Nagar, Rourkela Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aabcg 4382 R (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty P.R.Mohanty, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/0 04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/0 /04/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

condone the delay of days and days and admit the appeals for hearing. 4. The common issue taken in both the appeals is in regard to disallowance of PF & ESIC contributions to the extent of Rs.12,27,689/- and Rs.1,93,618/- totaling to Rs.14,21,307/- for the assessment year 2013-14 and Rs.6,37,793/- and Rs.1

M/S. GORAKHNATH CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,ROURKELA vs. DCIT, ROURKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.235 & 236/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014 14 & 2014-15 Gorakhnath Gorakhnath Construction Construction Vs. Dcit, Circle, Rourkela Dcit, Circle, Rourkela Pvt.Ltd., E-42, 42, Koel Koel Nagar, Nagar, Rourkela Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aabcg 4382 R (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty P.R.Mohanty, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/0 04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/0 /04/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

condone the delay of days and days and admit the appeals for hearing. 4. The common issue taken in both the appeals is in regard to disallowance of PF & ESIC contributions to the extent of Rs.12,27,689/- and Rs.1,93,618/- totaling to Rs.14,21,307/- for the assessment year 2013-14 and Rs.6,37,793/- and Rs.1

INDERA GARMENTS PVT. LTD,ROURKELA vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGALURE

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

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.171 & 172/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2022 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2018-2019 & 2019 2019 & 2019-2020 Indera Garments Pvt Ltd., Indera Garments Pvt Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Income Tax Dcit, Cpc, Income Tax Main Main Road, Road, Rourkela, Rourkela, Department, Bangalore Department, Bangalore Sundargarh Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaaci 9173 R (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal,Ar Pawan Kumar Agarwal,Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/01 01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/01 /01/2023 O R D E R

condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication,. 4. It was submitted by ld AR that the issue involved in the appeals is delayed payment of PF and ESI of Rs.1,55,516/- for the assessment year 2018-19 and Rs.1,74,155/- for the assessment year 2019-20 in respect of employees contribution. Ld A.R. submitted that the payment

INDERA GARMENTS PVT. LTD,ROURKELA vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGALURE

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

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.171 & 172/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2022 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2018-2019 & 2019 2019 & 2019-2020 Indera Garments Pvt Ltd., Indera Garments Pvt Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Income Tax Dcit, Cpc, Income Tax Main Main Road, Road, Rourkela, Rourkela, Department, Bangalore Department, Bangalore Sundargarh Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaaci 9173 R (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal,Ar Pawan Kumar Agarwal,Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/01 01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/01 /01/2023 O R D E R

condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication,. 4. It was submitted by ld AR that the issue involved in the appeals is delayed payment of PF and ESI of Rs.1,55,516/- for the assessment year 2018-19 and Rs.1,74,155/- for the assessment year 2019-20 in respect of employees contribution. Ld A.R. submitted that the payment

SMT. POONAM PUJARI,ROURKELA vs. PR. CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathanbefore Member & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2014-15

1 | 9 Assessment Year : 2014-15 3. Ld AR has filed an adjournment letter, which reads as under: P a g e 2 | 9 Assessment Year : 2014-15 4. The appeal is time barred by 36 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition dated 5.6.2023 supported by medical certified by the treating doctor stating that due to her illness

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 40A(3) of the Act and in not considering the business exigency and application of Rule 6DD of I.T. Rules, the impugned addition made by the learned A.O. and confirmed by the learned CIT (Appeal) thus, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. 5. For that, when the reassessment

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 40A(3) of the Act and in not considering the business exigency and application of Rule 6DD of I.T. Rules, the impugned addition made by the learned A.O. and confirmed by the learned CIT (Appeal) thus, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. 5. For that, when the reassessment

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 40A(3) of the Act and in not considering the business exigency and application of Rule 6DD of I.T. Rules, the impugned addition made by the learned A.O. and confirmed by the learned CIT (Appeal) thus, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. 5. For that, when the reassessment

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 40A(3) of the Act and in not considering the business exigency and application of Rule 6DD of I.T. Rules, the impugned addition made by the learned A.O. and confirmed by the learned CIT (Appeal) thus, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. 5. For that, when the reassessment

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 40A(3) of the Act and in not considering the business exigency and application of Rule 6DD of I.T. Rules, the impugned addition made by the learned A.O. and confirmed by the learned CIT (Appeal) thus, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. 5. For that, when the reassessment

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 40A(3) of the Act and in not considering the business exigency and application of Rule 6DD of I.T. Rules, the impugned addition made by the learned A.O. and confirmed by the learned CIT (Appeal) thus, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. 5. For that, when the reassessment

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 40A(3) of the Act and in not considering the business exigency and application of Rule 6DD of I.T. Rules, the impugned addition made by the learned A.O. and confirmed by the learned CIT (Appeal) thus, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. 5. For that, when the reassessment