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

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

LALIT KUMAR JALAN,JALAN PHARMACEUTICALS vs. ITO WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed with the directions

37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with the necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16-A of that Act. Explanation. - In this section, "Valuation Officer" has the same meaning, as in clause

ODISHA INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION(IDCO),BHUBANESWAR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.365/Ctk/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) M/S Odisha Industrial Infrastructure Vs Dcit, Circle-4(1), Bhubaneswar Development Corporation, Idco Tower, Janpath, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaaat 2619 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Bibekananda Mohanty, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12/11/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/11/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 25.05.2023, Passed In Appeal No.Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2/10971/2017-18 Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1053183739(1) For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. On Perusal Of The Appeal Record, We Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Has Been Filed Belatedly By 409 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Application Along With Affidavit Stating Sufficient Reasons For Delay In Filing The Present Appeal. The Contents Of The Affidavit Filed By The Assessee Are As Under :-

delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned and the appeal is heard finally. 5. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :- 1. That, the assessment order U/s 143(3) read with 144B and U/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is against law, weight of evidences and probabilities of the case. 2. The appellant being

ARCHANA PANDIT,GANJAM vs. ITO,WARD-1, BERHAMPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year :2016-17 Archana Pandit, Luchapada Archana Pandit, Luchapada Vs. Income Tax Officer, Wad-1, Income Tax Officer, Wad Road, Road, Bank Bank Colony, Colony, Berhampur Berhampur Pan/Gir No. No.Blqpp 9825 G (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr

condone the delay of 456 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee is a Super Stockist of pharmaceutical products and Baby Foods. It was the submission that the assessee had claimed sales promotion expenses of Rs.29,39,185/-, which was disallowed in its entirety by invoking the provisions of Explanation

KARANI DAN CHANDAK,JAJPUR ROAD vs. AO, NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri R.K.Pandaassessment Year : 2017-18 Karani Dan Chandak, Prop. M/S. Vs. Addl.Joint/Dy.Asst.Commssioner Chandan Zarda Store, Jajpur Of Income Tax, Nfac, Delhi Road, Jajpur Pan/Gir No.Aeppc 8155 H (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C.Bhadra, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/05/2024 O R D E R Per R.K.Panda

condoning the delay in filing of the appeal and thereby sustaining the addition of Rs.3,02,93,425/- made by the AO u/s.69A of the Act being unexplained cash deposit in the bank account during the year. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for the impugned

KALINGA MINING CORPORATION,CUTTACK vs. A.C.I.T, CIRCLE-2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

condone the delay of 2761 days in filing the present appeals and both the appeals of the assessee are heard on merits. 3. As the issues involved in both the years under appeal are common and the grounds taken by the assessee are also similar, therefore, both the appeals are decided together. For the sake of convenience, facts and grounds

KALINGA MINING CORPORATION,CUTTACK vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

condone the delay of 2761 days in filing the present appeals and both the appeals of the assessee are heard on merits. 3. As the issues involved in both the years under appeal are common and the grounds taken by the assessee are also similar, therefore, both the appeals are decided together. For the sake of convenience, facts and grounds

HEMANT KUMAR MAJHI,KONGARA vs. ITO, JEYPORE WARD, JEYPORE

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

37 years, S/o Sri Mahadev Majhi Peramanent Resident of Kongra Nabarangpur, PO/PS- Nabarangpur in the District of Nabarangpur do here by solemnly affirm and state as under-That I am the Deponent in this Affidavit and well acquainted with the facts of this Affidavit. That I was suffering from disease hence I could not file the appeal before the income

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

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

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

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

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE,, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. MAA TARINI MINERALS PVT.LIMITED, SUNDARGARH

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

37 and in page 14 of his order, has categorically held that the disallowance u/s.37 would only come into play if the assessee had been penalized under the appropriate sections of the respective statute and if the assessee has claimed this penalty as an expenses in the profit and loss account. Ld CIT(A) further goes on to hold that

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. TARINI MINERALS PVT. LTD., ROURKELA

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

37 and in page 14 of his order, has categorically held that the disallowance u/s.37 would only come into play if the assessee had been penalized under the appropriate sections of the respective statute and if the assessee has claimed this penalty as an expenses in the profit and loss account. Ld CIT(A) further goes on to hold that

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. TARINI MINERALS PVT. LIMITED, SUNDARGARH

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

37 and in page 14 of his order, has categorically held that the disallowance u/s.37 would only come into play if the assessee had been penalized under the appropriate sections of the respective statute and if the assessee has claimed this penalty as an expenses in the profit and loss account. Ld CIT(A) further goes on to hold that

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. TARINI MINERALS PVT. LIMITED, SUNDARGARH

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

37 and in page 14 of his order, has categorically held that the disallowance u/s.37 would only come into play if the assessee had been penalized under the appropriate sections of the respective statute and if the assessee has claimed this penalty as an expenses in the profit and loss account. Ld CIT(A) further goes on to hold that

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. TARINI MINERALS PVT. LIMITED, SUNDARGARH

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

37 and in page 14 of his order, has categorically held that the disallowance u/s.37 would only come into play if the assessee had been penalized under the appropriate sections of the respective statute and if the assessee has claimed this penalty as an expenses in the profit and loss account. Ld CIT(A) further goes on to hold that