M/S. SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD.,BELPAHAR, JHARSUGUDA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

4) of the Act on the profits from such projects, therefore, there cannot be two beneficiaries of deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act on one project i.e. first deduction is claimed by the joint venture as the principal awardee and developer of the infrastructure facility and later by one of its constituent claiming to be the lead partner and main

ASST. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, SAMBALPUR vs. SHREE BALAJI ENGICON LIMITED, BELPAHAR RS

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

4) of the Act on the profits from such projects, therefore, there cannot be two beneficiaries of deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act on one project i.e. first deduction is claimed by the joint venture as the principal awardee and developer of the infrastructure facility and later by one of its constituent claiming to be the lead partner and main

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD., JHARSUGUDA

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

4) of the Act on the profits from such projects, therefore, there cannot be two beneficiaries of deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act on one project i.e. first deduction is claimed by the joint venture as the principal awardee and developer of the infrastructure facility and later by one of its constituent claiming to be the lead partner and main

M/S. SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD.,BELPAHAR, JHARSUGUDA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

4) of the Act on the profits from such projects, therefore, there cannot be two beneficiaries of deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act on one project i.e. first deduction is claimed by the joint venture as the principal awardee and developer of the infrastructure facility and later by one of its constituent claiming to be the lead partner and main

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD., JHARSUGUDA

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

4) of the Act on the profits from such projects, therefore, there cannot be two beneficiaries of deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act on one project i.e. first deduction is claimed by the joint venture as the principal awardee and developer of the infrastructure facility and later by one of its constituent claiming to be the lead partner and main

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD., JHARSUGUDA

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

4) of the Act on the profits from such projects, therefore, there cannot be two beneficiaries of deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act on one project i.e. first deduction is claimed by the joint venture as the principal awardee and developer of the infrastructure facility and later by one of its constituent claiming to be the lead partner and main

M/S. SHREE BAALAJI ENGICONS LIMITED,JHARSUGUDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

4) of the Act on the profits from such projects, therefore, there cannot be two beneficiaries of deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act on one project i.e. first deduction is claimed by the joint venture as the principal awardee and developer of the infrastructure facility and later by one of its constituent claiming to be the lead partner and main

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

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 No. 4

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

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 No. 4

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

disallowed under s. 40A(3)—Smt. Sapna Sanjay Raisoni vs. ITO (2016) 179 TTJ 34 (Pune)(Trib) followed.” In the case of “Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education Vs. ITO, (2019) 176 ITD 47 (Mumbai)” the Hon’ble Mumbai Bench of ITAT it was held that; There is complete control of the State Government over the affairs of the assessee

DCIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. DISCOVERTURE SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2011-12

disallowed deduction of Rs.3,67,15,136.19 claimed by the assessee u/s.10A and also did not allow deduction u/s.10B of the Act to the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). 5. The CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of exemption of Rs.3

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

disallowed deduction of the whole of the amount of Rs. 9,58,96,328 applied in various projects and computed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 10,13,15,635 and raised a demand in the total amount of Rs. 6,99,70,607 in the Intimation under section 143(1) of the Act vide DIN: CPC/2223/B7/410451517 dated

SRI DATTATREYA SAI ASHRAM TRUST,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE,, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 139 of the Act. In the present case, as it is noticed that the Form 10B has 4 been filed before the due date of filing of the return u/s.139(1) of the Act, therefore, the disallowance

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

section 119(2) of the Act and decide on merits. However, while deciding the appeal of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee stating that the ld. CIT(A) has no power to condone the delay for late filing of Form 10B. 4. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee is in further appeal before

REGIONAL COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT TRUST,KHURDA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION) HYDERABAD, AT- BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.22/Ctk/2024 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) Regional College Of Vs Cit(Exemption), Hyderabad At Management Trust, Bhubaneswar Gd-2/12, 2/13, Chakadola Vihar Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar-751023 Pan No. :Aabtr 3100 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra & Himanshu Jena, Ars राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/06/2024

4 the assessee must also have filed appeal against the said order to the ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that regarding the quantum of the addition as to whether the entire expenditure is liable to be disallowed or not was the subject matter of the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and only the validity of the order

PUBLIC SCHOOL,PHULBANI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, BERHAMPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed. Further, the entire annual receipts have been treated as income. The ld. CIT(A) rejected the appeal of the assessee following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. Wipro Ltd., reported in [2022] 140 taxmann.com 223 (SC), wherein it has been held that while interpreting the provisions of section 10B(8) requiring

PRAGATI CHARITABLE TRUST,PURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.525/Ctk/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Pragati Charitable Trust Vs Income Tax Officer, Exemption Plot No-66 Gyana Viahr, Ward, Bhubaneswar Gopinathpur B.O Dhauli Hills Puri, 751002 Pan No. :Aaqpn 2087 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K. Mishra,Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/12/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Addl/ Jcit (A)-5, Chennai, Dated 05/12/2024, In Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1070904602(1) Having Appeal No. Addl/Jcit(A)-5, Chennai/10003/2014-15 For The Assessment Year 2015- 2016. 2. The Assesee Has Challenged The Appellate Order On The Strength Of The Following Grounds Appeal:- 1. For That, When The Learned A.O. Has No Power & Authority To Determine The Income Of The Assessee Trust, Treating The Entire Gross Receipt As Income, While Processing The Return U/S.143(1) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2015-16, The Learned Cit(A) Has Committed Gross Error Of Law In Confirming The Said Order, As Such, Order Passed By The Learned Cit(A) As Well As By The Learned A.O., Being Not Sustainable In The Eye Of Law, Needs To Be Quashed In The Interest Of Justice

section 12A of the Act. Since the Form 10B was not filed within the stipulated time limit, CPC while processing the return of income, has disallowed the expenditure claimed as application against the income/ receipt, which order was confirmed by the JCIT(A). Thus, the present appeal has been filed before us. 4

BHARATIYA SIKSHYA BIKASHA SANSTHANA,BERHAMPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year :2021-22 Bharatiya Sikshya Bikasha Bharatiya Sikshya Bikasha Vs. Income Income Tax Tax Officer, Officer, Sansthana , (Exemption),Berhampur Berhampur Siddhartha Nagar 1St Line Siddhartha Nagar 1 Po Po : : Banthapali Banthapali, Puruna Berhampur, B.O : Berhampur Sadar, B.O : Berhampur Sadar, Ganjam , 760002 Ganjam , 760002 Pan/Gir No. No. Aactb 4047N (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Radha Krishna Sahu, Radha Krishna Sahu, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 31/12/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/12/20 024 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Ainst The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 30.8.2024 In Appeal No.Cit(A), Cit(A),Nfac/2020- 21/10291247 For The Ass For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. Shri Radha Kr Radha Krishna Sahu, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. , Sr. Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

disallowing the expenses of Rs.54,76,336/- without considering the details of expenses reported by the assessee in Form ITR-7. 4) That for the said AY Form 10B was filed belatedly along with the return on 23.2.2022 and as such same should have been considered by the . 5) That the non-filing of the audit report along with