M/S- RAWAT BALAJI (JOINT VENTURE),JHARSUGUDA vs. PRILNCIPAL, CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

condone the delay and admit all the three appeals for adjudication. 4. Since similar and identical issues involved in all the three appeals of the assessees, therefore they are heard altogether and disposed off by this consolidated order en masse. 5. Ld. Assessee‟s Representative (AR) drew our attention towards two paper books of the assessee spread over 475 pages

SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD,JHARSUGUDA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

condone the delay and admit all the three appeals for adjudication. 4. Since similar and identical issues involved in all the three appeals of the assessees, therefore they are heard altogether and disposed off by this consolidated order en masse. 5. Ld. Assessee‟s Representative (AR) drew our attention towards two paper books of the assessee spread over 475 pages

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

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

4) or sub-section (5), as the case may be, to the Assessing Officer and the assessee, within a period of six months from the end of the month in which a reference is made under sub-section (1). (7) The Assessing Officer may, on receipt of the report from the Valuation Officer, and after giving the assessee an opportunity

M/S. PRAKASH KUMAR ROUT,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, all the appeals of the all the assessees are allowed

condone the delay of 525 days in filing all the present appeals before the Tribunal and admit all the appeals for adjudication. 4. The sole issue raised in all the appeals is against the levy of penalty u/s.271AAB of the Act by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). 5. The AO in case of all the assessees under

M/S. PRAGATI MILK PRODUCT PVT. LTD.,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, all the appeals of the all the assessees are allowed

condone the delay of 525 days in filing all the present appeals before the Tribunal and admit all the appeals for adjudication. 4. The sole issue raised in all the appeals is against the levy of penalty u/s.271AAB of the Act by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). 5. The AO in case of all the assessees under

M/S. PRAMOD KUMAR ROUT,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, all the appeals of the all the assessees are allowed

condone the delay of 525 days in filing all the present appeals before the Tribunal and admit all the appeals for adjudication. 4. The sole issue raised in all the appeals is against the levy of penalty u/s.271AAB of the Act by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). 5. The AO in case of all the assessees under

M/S. PASUPATI BREEDING FARM PVT. LTD.,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, all the appeals of the all the assessees are allowed

condone the delay of 525 days in filing all the present appeals before the Tribunal and admit all the appeals for adjudication. 4. The sole issue raised in all the appeals is against the levy of penalty u/s.271AAB of the Act by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). 5. The AO in case of all the assessees under

M/S. PRAKASH KUMAR ROUT,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, all the appeals of the all the assessees are allowed

condone the delay of 525 days in filing all the present appeals before the Tribunal and admit all the appeals for adjudication. 4. The sole issue raised in all the appeals is against the levy of penalty u/s.271AAB of the Act by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). 5. The AO in case of all the assessees under

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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)

4. After hearing both the sides and in view of the direction of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P (C) No.23596 of 2022 dated 19.12.2022, the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned and admitted for adjudication. 5. It was submitted by ld Sr Advocate that there is only one issue being challenged against the revision

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

GRAM VIKAS TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. ITO,EXEMPTION WARD, BERAMPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2014-

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

condone the delay in filing of Form 10 under section 119(2)(b) of the Act.” II. ITA No.437/CTK/2024; AY 2015-16: “Ground No. 1: The learned CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer have erred in rejecting the petition filed under section 154 on 10/12/2016 for rectifying the intimation under section 143(1)(a) for disallowing deduction claimed under section

GRAM VIKAS TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, BERAMPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2014-

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

condone the delay in filing of Form 10 under section 119(2)(b) of the Act.” II. ITA No.437/CTK/2024; AY 2015-16: “Ground No. 1: The learned CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer have erred in rejecting the petition filed under section 154 on 10/12/2016 for rectifying the intimation under section 143(1)(a) for disallowing deduction claimed under section

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

Section 253 (5) of the Act and submitted that the Tribunal can condone the delay if it is satisfied with sufficient cause for delay. In view of the above, ld. AR submitted that the delay in filing the present appeal may kindly be condoned and appeal may kindly be admitted for hearing. 3. Per Contra, ld. CIT-DR vehemently opposed

M/S. ORISSA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, ITA No.335/CTK/2017 is allowed and ITA

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Orissa Cricket Association Vs. Cit(Exemptions), Barabati Stadium,Cuttack-753001, Hyderabad Odisha, Pan No. : Aaaao 0319 F & Orissa Cricket Association Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Barabati Stadium, Cuttack Cuttack-753001, Odisha Pan No. : Aaaao 0319 F (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. निर्धाऩिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan & D.Das, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Saad Kidwai, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12/12/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri N.S.Saini, Am:

Section 13(1)(c) of the Act. The undersigned cannot ignore the violations of law the assessee indulged in and cannot grant registration on the basis of only the aims and objects, written in Memorandum of the Association. The CIT(E) observed that the he was satisfied that the activities of the association are not genuine and charitable based

DEOKARAN DAS RAMBILASH,SUNDARGARH vs. ITA, WARD-04, , ROURKELA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicialassessment Year : 2010-2011 Deokaran Das Deokaran Das Rambilash, Old Vs. Ito, Ward -4, Station Road, Rourkela. Station Road, Rourkela. Rourkela. Pan/Gir No.Aadfd 9708 K Aadfd 9708 K (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agarwalla, Ar Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Dr Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/05/ 2021 1 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/06/20 /2021 O R D E R

1 | 9 Assessment Year : 2010-2011 3. The appeal is time barred by 359 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition supported by an affidavit sworn by Sri Suresh Chandra Agarwal, Managing Partner of M/s. Deokaran Das Rambilash, wherein, it is stated that he received order of the ld CIT(A) on 20.9.2019 and the appeal has to be filed

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

1 year. If the proper dates or occasions are not mentioned with proper facts then the delay cannot be condoned. It was further held that law helps diligent and not the indolent as well as the axiomatic delay defeats equity. The Hon'ble Jaipur ITAT held that in its considered view that the condonation petitions filed by the assessee

BACKBONE ARSS JV,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-4(3), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.81/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2012-2013) Hcil Adhikarya Arss Jv Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaefh 3757 R & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.82 & 112/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-2014 & 2012-2013) M/S Arss Atlanta Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaqfa 8726 P & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.83 & 113/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14 & 2012-13) M/S Arss Anpr Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aabaa 1158 M & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.84 & 116/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14 & 2012-13) M/S Arss Triveni Jv Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aabaa 1081 H & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.85/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14) M/S Arss-Gvr Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aacaa 1049 A & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.86 & 111/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-2014 & 2012-2013) M/S Niraj Arss Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaaan 5116 B

condone the delay in aforesaid appeals and all the appeals along with other appeals are heard on merits. 5. Though the assessees in all these appeals are different, however, issues involved in these appeals are common, therefore, they are heard altogether and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, we shall take

ARSS-GVR JV,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-4(3), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.81/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2012-2013) Hcil Adhikarya Arss Jv Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaefh 3757 R & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.82 & 112/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-2014 & 2012-2013) M/S Arss Atlanta Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaqfa 8726 P & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.83 & 113/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14 & 2012-13) M/S Arss Anpr Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aabaa 1158 M & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.84 & 116/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14 & 2012-13) M/S Arss Triveni Jv Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aabaa 1081 H & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.85/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14) M/S Arss-Gvr Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aacaa 1049 A & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.86 & 111/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-2014 & 2012-2013) M/S Niraj Arss Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaaan 5116 B

condone the delay in aforesaid appeals and all the appeals along with other appeals are heard on merits. 5. Though the assessees in all these appeals are different, however, issues involved in these appeals are common, therefore, they are heard altogether and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, we shall take

PATEL-ARSS JV,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-4(3), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.81/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2012-2013) Hcil Adhikarya Arss Jv Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaefh 3757 R & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.82 & 112/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-2014 & 2012-2013) M/S Arss Atlanta Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaqfa 8726 P & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.83 & 113/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14 & 2012-13) M/S Arss Anpr Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aabaa 1158 M & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.84 & 116/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14 & 2012-13) M/S Arss Triveni Jv Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aabaa 1081 H & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.85/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14) M/S Arss-Gvr Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aacaa 1049 A & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.86 & 111/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-2014 & 2012-2013) M/S Niraj Arss Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaaan 5116 B

condone the delay in aforesaid appeals and all the appeals along with other appeals are heard on merits. 5. Though the assessees in all these appeals are different, however, issues involved in these appeals are common, therefore, they are heard altogether and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, we shall take