SAINT XAVIER EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO(EXEMPTION) WARD, BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.405 & 406 /Ctk/2024 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2021-202 2022 Saint Xavier Educational & Saint Xavier Educational & Vs. Ito (Exemption) Ito (Exemption) Charitable Trust, Plot No.12, Charitable Trust, Plot No.12, Ward, Bhubaneswar Ward, Bhubaneswar Janapath, , Satyanagar, Satyanagar, Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. No.Aaits 4367 A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

disallowed in intimation without verification. We are not going into the issue of substantial justice but substantial injustice has been noticed. Admittedly, the liberal approach is called for from the Court. 10. Coming to the next principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay

NABA UTKAL TRUST,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, BHUBANESWAR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Am आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.268/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2021-2022) Naba Utkal Trust, Vs Ito, Exemption, Bhubaneswar Plot No.841, Keshab Complex, Cuttack Road, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No. : Aabtn 0126 D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ambika Prasad Mohanty, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order, Dated 28.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Addl./Jcit(A), Panaji, For The Assessment Year 2021-2022. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 60 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Therein That The Delay Of 60 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Is Due To Lack Of Knowledge About The Order Passed By The Ld.Pcit. Accordingly, The Assessee Prayed That The Delay Of 60 Days May Kindly Be Condoned & Appeal Of The Assessee May Kindly Be Admitted For Hearing. Ld. Sr. Dr Did Not Raise Any Objection To This Contention Of The Assessee For Condonation Of Delay. Accordingly, We Are Of The View That The Assessee

delay of 01 day for which the assessee cannot be penalized by disallowing the claim as made in the return of income. Since the filing of Form 10B is a procedural requirement rather than mandatory requirement, considering the same, we do hereby condone

WOMEN ORGANISATION FOR SOCIO CULTURAL AWARNESS,KEONJHAR vs. ITO,EXEMPTIONS, CUTTACK

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

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

condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as under: “01 That this application arises out of the Income Tax Appeal filed by the assessee causing a delay of 120 days in filing the appeal. 02. That the Petitioner is an Income Tax assessee. It filed the Audit Report in Form No. 10B for the financial year

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.” 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

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

DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. ARSS INFRASTUCTURE PROJECTSLIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

delay of 346 days in filing the appeal by the revenue is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4. The revenue is aggrieved by the order of the ld CIT(A) in giving relief of Rs.11,44,366/- by restricting the disallowance

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

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

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

disallowing purchase expenses of Rs.22,30,000.00 by applying provisions of 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

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

disallowing purchase expenses of Rs.22,30,000.00 by applying provisions of 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

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

disallowing purchase expenses of Rs.22,30,000.00 by applying provisions of 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

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

disallowing purchase expenses of Rs.22,30,000.00 by applying provisions of 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

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

disallowing purchase expenses of Rs.22,30,000.00 by applying provisions of 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

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

disallowing purchase expenses of Rs.22,30,000.00 by applying provisions of 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

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

disallowing purchase expenses of Rs.22,30,000.00 by applying provisions of 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

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

disallowing purchase expenses of Rs.22,30,000.00 by applying provisions of 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

DCIT,CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. RADHIKAPUR (WEST) COAL MINING (P) LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

delay of 417 days in filing the appeal by the revenue is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4. The revenue is aggrieved by the deletion of addition made by the AO amounting to Rs.1,69,25,714/- representing interest on fixed deposits. 5. Facts of the case are that the assessee is a joint venture (JV) company