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

249(2) of the Act r/w section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. While going through the material available on record, we find P a g e 3 | 6 ITA Nos.536 & 537/CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-1 & 2017-18 that the assessee has satisfactorily explained the cause of delay due to the fact that the notice was sent on email address

SARASWATI SISHU MANDIR,DHENKANAL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENTDEPARTMENT, BHUBANESWAR

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

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

Section 249(2) of the Act when the Ld. CIT(A) issued a notice for hearing by requiring the assessee to submit the details in respect of grounds of appeal raised. Therefore, dismissing the appeal after proceeded for hearing is bad in law and liable to be set aside. 4. For that, on the facts and circumstance of the case

PRADEEP PATI,KENDUJHAR vs. ITO,WARD, KENDUJHAR

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita No.540 /Ctk/2024 Assessment Year : 2021-22 Pradeep Pati Vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Officer, Brahmanagaon College Road, Brahmanagaon College Road, Keonjhar Keonjhargarh H. O Kendujahar Onjhargarh H. O Kendujahar Town Kendujhar 758001 Kendujhar 758001 Pan/Gir No.Amaapp 8010 D Amaapp 8010 D (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty , Adv , 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 Of The Ld Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 18/11/2024 In Appeal No. In Appeal No. Nfac/2020- 21/10251602 For The Ass For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. Shri P.R.Mohaty, P.R.Mohaty, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. , Sr. Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

disallowed on flimsy grounds on the basis of surmises or presumptions or assumptions deserves to be deleted due to compiling ground realities and existence of exceptional and unavoidable circumstances. 4. 4. For that, the addition of Rs.1,47,93,800/- to the total income towards unexplained money added U/s 69A of the I.T. Act amounting to Rs.39

SRIPRAKASH PANY,BHUBANESWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year :2010-11

disallowed, the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) is wrong in endorsing the action of the Ld. AO, therefore the deduction of 1.65 672 is to be allowed u/s 10(13A) of the Act. 4. That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) erred in facts and circumstances in not considering the submission of the assesseee that the assessee does

KONARK AQUATICS & EXPORT (P) LTD,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act to bring to tax 100% of the said disallowance as the income of the assessee. It was the submission that the issue is now squarely covered by the decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Om Sri Nilamadhab Builders (P) Ltd., in ITA No.296/CTK/2018, order dated 14.11.2022, wherein