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.

delay in filing of the appeal stands condoned and the appeal is being disposed off on merits. 7. It was submitted by ld AR that there are three issues in the appeal. The first issue was against the action of the ld CIT(A) in confirming the estimation of the profit at 8% by the Assessing Officer as against

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.” 3. We will first take up the appeal in ITA No. 436/CTK/2024. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income which was processed u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act by the CPC in which the claim

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.” 3. We will first take up the appeal in ITA No. 436/CTK/2024. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income which was processed u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act by the CPC in which the claim

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

KAMYAB TELEVISION(P) LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.536 & 537/Ctk/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2017-18 Assessment Year 18 Kamyab Television Pvt. Ltd., Plot Kamyab Television Pvt. Ltd., Plot Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Dcit, Corporate Circle No.159, Alaka Unit No.159, Alaka Unit-Ii, Ashok Bhubaneswar Nagar, Bhubaneswar Nagar, Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No Aaecm 3608 B Aaecm 3608 B (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Adv , Adv Revenue By : Shri : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, Cit Dr & S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 31/12/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/12/20 024

delay in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned. 10. We find that for the assessment year 2013-14, as the assessee has failed to produce books of account and bills & vouchers, ld CIT(A) has restricted the disallowance to 50% of the total claim made by the assessee in respect of provision of section

KAMYAB TELEVISION (P) LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.536 & 537/Ctk/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2017-18 Assessment Year 18 Kamyab Television Pvt. Ltd., Plot Kamyab Television Pvt. Ltd., Plot Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Dcit, Corporate Circle No.159, Alaka Unit No.159, Alaka Unit-Ii, Ashok Bhubaneswar Nagar, Bhubaneswar Nagar, Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No Aaecm 3608 B Aaecm 3608 B (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Adv , Adv Revenue By : Shri : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, Cit Dr & S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 31/12/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/12/20 024

delay in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned. 10. We find that for the assessment year 2013-14, as the assessee has failed to produce books of account and bills & vouchers, ld CIT(A) has restricted the disallowance to 50% of the total claim made by the assessee in respect of provision of section

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

M/S. NALCO MINES EMPLOYEES UNION,KORAPUT vs. PR.CIT-1, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is disposed off with the directions to the competent authority –ld

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Manish Boradassessment Years: 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Pramod Kumar Moharana, Vs. Pr. Cit-1, Bhubaneswar.Of Nalco Mines Employees‟ Union, At: D-9, Sector-1, Nalco Township, Damanjodi,Dist: Koraput Pan/Gir No.Aclpm 0589 M (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Basudev Panda, Sr. Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 27 /10/ 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order U/S.119(2)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Of The Pr. Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar For The Assessment Years 2012-13 To 2017-18. Application Of Applicant/Assessee For Condonation Of Delay :- 2. Ld. Senior Counsel On Application Dated 28.03.2021 Submitted That The Hon‟Ble High Court Of Orissa Was Pleased To Direct To File Appeal Before The Tribunal For Adjudication & The Matter Was Disposed Of Vide W.P.(C) No.24445/2020, Dated 05.01.2021 & I.A.No.250/2021 Vide Dated 17.03.2021 For Consideration Of Explanation Of Assessee For The Delay In P A G E 1 | 20 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2017-18

condonation of delay and separately furnished to be allowed in toto. I. For that the issue regarding population of the particular place since was already considered by competent authorities were accepted by the Hon'ble Tribunal as well as the Hon'ble Court and further scrutiny and review of the matter is beyond of the jurisdiction and competency

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

URMILA KISHAN,ANGUL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC)

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & 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 which are more in the nature of submissions than the grounds of appeal but are reproduced as under: “1. Unjustified Addition of Unsecured Loans u/s 68 of the Act, Ld. AO has erred in facts

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the order of the learned CIT(Appeal) is unjust and not in reference to the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That the appellant is not maintaining the books of account. 3. That

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

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

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/CTK/2020\n4. The first issue raised by the Revenue in ground

DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. NILAKANTHA EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Manish Borad & Manish Borad & Manish Boradassessment Year : 2009-2010 2010 Dcit (Exemptions), Dcit (Exemptions), Vs. M/S. Nilakantha Educational & M/S. Nilakantha Educational & Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Charitable Trust, At: Anantpur, Charitable Trust, At: Anantpur, Po: Phulnakhara, Dist:Khurda Po: Phulnakhara, Dist:Khurda Pan/Gir No. No.Aaatn 4043 J (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21 /10/ 20 / 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 22 /10 10/2021 O R D E R

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for adjudication. 5. We have heard ld D.R. and perused the record of the case. We find that the ld CIT(A) has adjudicated the issue as under: “ For assessment year 2009-10, the appellant had filed its return in ITR-7 showing taxable income of “ Nil” after claiming exemption

KARTAVYA CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

delay of 36 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee is in the business of meter reading, bill distribution and revenue collection work for the 2 electricity distribution in the state of Orissa. The assessee

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