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

45,000/- has been actually set apart under section 11(2) and reported in Form 10B, delay in uploading Form 10 cannot lead to disallowances. Ground No. 3: Rejection of the claim under section 11(2), without notice to appellant, is incorrect and the same is against judicial decisions. Nagpur Hotel Owners’ Association 247 ITR 201 (SC). Ground

JM MINING AND TRADING PVT. LTD,TULSIPUR, CUTTACK vs. A.C.I.T CIRCLE2(1), CUTTACK CIRCLE, CUTTACK, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, SHELTER CHOWK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.36 & 37/Ctk/2024 24 Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011 11 & 2011-12 Jm Mining & Trading Pvt Jm Mining & Trading Pvt Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-2(1), Ltd., Ltd., At At-Madhusudan Cuttack Avenue, Tulsipur, Cuttack Avenue, Tulsipur, Cuttack Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aabcj 2946 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, Sandeep Kumar Jena, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/0 07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/0 /07/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. " Every day's delay must be explained " does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational, common sense and pragmatic manner

JM MINING AND TRADING PVT. LTD.,TULSIPUR, CUTTACK vs. A.C.I.T, CIRCLE-2(1), CUTTACK, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, SHELTER CHOWK, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.36 & 37/Ctk/2024 24 Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011 11 & 2011-12 Jm Mining & Trading Pvt Jm Mining & Trading Pvt Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-2(1), Ltd., Ltd., At At-Madhusudan Cuttack Avenue, Tulsipur, Cuttack Avenue, Tulsipur, Cuttack Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aabcj 2946 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, Sandeep Kumar Jena, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/0 07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/0 /07/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. " Every day's delay must be explained " does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational, common sense and pragmatic manner

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “A. For that, the order of the forums below are illegal absurd, improper and excessive in the facts and circumstances of the case, hence the orders passed are liable to be deleted. B. For that

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

45,127.00, being not proper and correct in the eye of law as well as of fact, is not sustainable in the eye of law, hence needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. P a g e 3 | 10 ITA Nos.555 to 561/CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2020-21, 2019-20 4. For that, while accepting purchases, sales

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

45,127.00, being not proper and correct in the eye of law as well as of fact, is not sustainable in the eye of law, hence needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. P a g e 3 | 10 ITA Nos.555 to 561/CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2020-21, 2019-20 4. For that, while accepting purchases, sales

SAHOO DIOSTRIBUTERS 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

45,127.00, being not proper and correct in the eye of law as well as of fact, is not sustainable in the eye of law, hence needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. P a g e 3 | 10 ITA Nos.555 to 561/CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2020-21, 2019-20 4. For that, while accepting purchases, sales

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

45,127.00, being not proper and correct in the eye of law as well as of fact, is not sustainable in the eye of law, hence needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. P a g e 3 | 10 ITA Nos.555 to 561/CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2020-21, 2019-20 4. For that, while accepting purchases, sales

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

45,127.00, being not proper and correct in the eye of law as well as of fact, is not sustainable in the eye of law, hence needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. P a g e 3 | 10 ITA Nos.555 to 561/CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2020-21, 2019-20 4. For that, while accepting purchases, sales

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

45,127.00, being not proper and correct in the eye of law as well as of fact, is not sustainable in the eye of law, hence needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. P a g e 3 | 10 ITA Nos.555 to 561/CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2020-21, 2019-20 4. For that, while accepting purchases, sales

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

45,127.00, being not proper and correct in the eye of law as well as of fact, is not sustainable in the eye of law, hence needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. P a g e 3 | 10 ITA Nos.555 to 561/CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2020-21, 2019-20 4. For that, while accepting purchases, sales

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

45,127.00, being not proper and correct in the eye of law as well as of fact, is not sustainable in the eye of law, hence needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. P a g e 3 | 10 ITA Nos.555 to 561/CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2020-21, 2019-20 4. For that, while accepting purchases, sales

BIPIN NATH,KUAKHIA vs. ITO, WARD(1), CUTTACK, CUTTACK

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru R.L Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.632/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Bipin Nath Rasulpur, Kabirpur, Vs Ito, Ward (1), Cuttack Jajpur-755009, Odisha Pan No. : Apspn 5964 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Arun Kr Dash & Biswaranjan Panda, Ars राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijaya Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 23 /12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23 /12/2025

delay of 45 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 2 3. Ld AR of the assessee submitted that the ld CIT(A) has passed the order exparte without affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee. It was the submission that the assessee has not received any notice

ORISSA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,CUTTACK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaorissa Cricket Association, Barabati Statidum, Cuttack Pan No.Aaaao 0319 F …………….. Assessee Versus Acit (Exemptions), Bhubaneswar ………………Revenue

condone the delay of 210 days in filing the present appeal and the appeal is heard finally. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that there was a search & seizure conducted on 28.03.2016 in the residential premises of Sri Ashirbad Behera, Secretary of the assessee. It was the submission that in the course of search one set of document

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

MR. MADAN LAL GUPTA,BHADRAK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK

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

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.379/Ctk/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Madan Lal Gupta Vs Ito, Bhadrak Ward, Bhadrak Near Charampa College, Tishalpur, Rahanja, Charampa, Bhadrak, 756101 Pan No. : Acxpg 7862 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.R. Panda, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assesee Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac),Delhi Dated 18/10/2024 Passed In Appeal No.Cit(A),Cuttack/10541/2019-20 For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. At The Outset, It Is Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 181 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Stating Sufficient Reasons For Condonation Of Delay, Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Ld.Sr. Dr Also Did Not Raise Any Serious Objection To Condone The Delay. Accordingly, The Delay Of 181 Days In Filing The Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Admitted For Hearing.

delay of 181 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 2 3. It was submitted by the Ld. AR, that there are two additions. It was the submission that the assesee is a wholesale dealer of Britannia Biscuits. It was the submission that in the course

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