INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JHARSUGUDA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, JHARSUGUDA vs. HIRAKHAND TRANSPORT AND MULTI PURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., BRAJARAJ NAGAR

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.282/Ctk/2024 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Ito, Ward-1, Jharsuguda Vs Hirakhand Transport & Multi Purpose Cooperative Society Pvt. Ltd., At-Chingriguda, Bijapara, R Kudopali, Brajrajnagar, Jharsuguda-768216 Pan No. :Aaaah 5874 Q & प्रत्याक्षेऩ सं/Cross Objection No.04/Ctk/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.282/Ctk/2024) (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Hirakhand Transport & Multi Vs Ito, Ward-1, Jharsuguda Purpose Cooperative Society Pvt. Ltd., At-Chingriguda, Bijapara, R Kudopali, Brajrajnagar, Jharsuguda-768216 Pan No. :Aaaah 5874 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Anil Kumar Agrawala, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/09/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 15.05.2024, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1064895008(1) For The Assessment Year 2015-2016, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :-

Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act are not applicable. For this proposition, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manjara Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., reported in 301 ITR 191 (2008) and prayed that the 10 & CO No.04/CTK/2024 satisfaction recorded that no disallowance

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

301 ITR 86 (SC) and Queen's Educational Society (2015) 372 ITR 699 (SC) and the Hon'ble Tribunal by following the said decisions allowed exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) to the assessee for AY 2014- 15. 6. That the appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify, substitute, add to. abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

301 ITR 86 (SC) and Queen's Educational Society (2015) 372 ITR 699 (SC) and the Hon'ble Tribunal by following the said decisions allowed exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) to the assessee for AY 2014- 15. 6. That the appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify, substitute, add to. abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

301 ITR 86 (SC) and Queen's Educational Society (2015) 372 ITR 699 (SC) and the Hon'ble Tribunal by following the said decisions allowed exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) to the assessee for AY 2014- 15. 6. That the appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify, substitute, add to. abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds

ROLAND INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

301 ITR 86 (SC) and Queen's Educational Society (2015) 372 ITR 699 (SC) and the Hon'ble Tribunal by following the said decisions allowed exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) to the assessee for AY 2014- 15. 6. That the appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify, substitute, add to. abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds

ROLAND INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

301 ITR 86 (SC) and Queen's Educational Society (2015) 372 ITR 699 (SC) and the Hon'ble Tribunal by following the said decisions allowed exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) to the assessee for AY 2014- 15. 6. That the appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify, substitute, add to. abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds

ROLAND INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

301 ITR 86 (SC) and Queen's Educational Society (2015) 372 ITR 699 (SC) and the Hon'ble Tribunal by following the said decisions allowed exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) to the assessee for AY 2014- 15. 6. That the appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify, substitute, add to. abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds

RONALD EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

301 ITR 86 (SC) and Queen's Educational Society (2015) 372 ITR 699 (SC) and the Hon'ble Tribunal by following the said decisions allowed exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) to the assessee for AY 2014- 15. 6. That the appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify, substitute, add to. abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. DCIT, BERHAMPUR CIRCLE, BERHAMPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

301 ITR 86 (SC) and Queen's Educational Society (2015) 372 ITR 699 (SC) and the Hon'ble Tribunal by following the said decisions allowed exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) to the assessee for AY 2014- 15. 6. That the appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify, substitute, add to. abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

301 ITR 86 (SC) and Queen's Educational Society (2015) 372 ITR 699 (SC) and the Hon'ble Tribunal by following the said decisions allowed exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) to the assessee for AY 2014- 15. 6. That the appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify, substitute, add to. abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. DCIT, BERHAMPUR CIRCLE, BERHAMPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

301 ITR 86 (SC) and Queen's Educational Society (2015) 372 ITR 699 (SC) and the Hon'ble Tribunal by following the said decisions allowed exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) to the assessee for AY 2014- 15. 6. That the appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify, substitute, add to. abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

301 ITR 86 (SC) and Queen's Educational Society (2015) 372 ITR 699 (SC) and the Hon'ble Tribunal by following the said decisions allowed exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) to the assessee for AY 2014- 15. 6. That the appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify, substitute, add to. abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds

ROLAND INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

301 ITR 86 (SC) and Queen's Educational Society (2015) 372 ITR 699 (SC) and the Hon'ble Tribunal by following the said decisions allowed exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) to the assessee for AY 2014- 15. 6. That the appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify, substitute, add to. abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds

ROLAND INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

301 ITR 86 (SC) and Queen's Educational Society (2015) 372 ITR 699 (SC) and the Hon'ble Tribunal by following the said decisions allowed exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) to the assessee for AY 2014- 15. 6. That the appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify, substitute, add to. abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. DCIT, BERHAMPUR CIRCLE, BERHAMPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

301 ITR 86 (SC) and Queen's Educational Society (2015) 372 ITR 699 (SC) and the Hon'ble Tribunal by following the said decisions allowed exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) to the assessee for AY 2014- 15. 6. That the appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify, substitute, add to. abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds

MANORANJAN DASH,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO WARD 3(1), BHUBANESWAR

301 + 28,05,660 + 14,00,355) which is the share of the\nappellant as a Developer. Thus, the cost of construction to the appellant works out\nto 1254.93 per sft, which is reasonable. The entire cost of construction shown in the\nsale deed relates to the appellant to the extent of his share of 66.67% and landlord\nshare

JANARDAN NATH,DHENKANAL vs. ITO, DHENKANAL WARD, DHENKANAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.37/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Janardan Nath, Vs. Ito, Dhenkanal Ward, Chandan Bazar, Dhenkanal Dhenkanal स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan No. : Abcpn 4137 A (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

section of Income Tax Act and he could not produce any evidence except copy of acknowledgements for the A.Y.2004-2005 to 2008-2009 and 2011-2012 to 2013-2014. In addition to this, he had also submitted written submissions which was considered by the AO. Further, the AR of the assessee in response to the query of the AO submitted that

RAVI METALLICS LIMITED,ROURKELA vs. PR.CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaravi Metallics Limited, I/10, Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan No.Adqps 4031 G ………………Assessee Versus Pr.Cit, Sambalpur ………………..Revenue Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ar For The Assessee Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr For The Revenue Date Of Hearing : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, Passed U/S.263 Of The Act In Case No.Pcit/Sbp/263/26/2018-19, Dated 29.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. Heard On The Question Of Condonation Of Delay 2. On Perusal Of The Record, We Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 686 Days. In This Regard, Ld. Ar Filed An Application Along With Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay, Wherein It Has Been Submitted That The Delay Occurred In Filing The Present Appeal Is Neither Intentional Nor Deliberate But Due To Unfortunate & Unavoidable Circumstances Beyond

disallowances indicating non-application of mind on his part. e) As per note-28 of the balance sheet, no depreciation was charged in respect of Shanti Mall, Rourkela since it was not put to use. On the other hand, vide letter dated 11.01.2016, it was alleged that the appellant company had transferred the capital expenditure of Rs.13

BHAVENDRA HASMUKHLAL PATADIA. LEGAL HEIR OF HASMUKHLAL PATADIA.,CUTTACK vs. ITO WARD-!(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.125/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Bhavendra Hasmukhlal Patadia, Vs Ito, Ward-1(1), Cuttack Legal Heir Of Hasmukhlal Patadia, Nayabazar, Chauliaganj, Cuttack-753004 Pan No. :Adapp 6256 G (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Pr.Cit, Cuttack, Passed In Itba/Com/F/17/2019-20/1026790827(1), Dated 19.03.2020, For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. Head On The Question Of Condonation Of Delay 2. On Perusal Of The Appeal Record, It Is Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 784 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Dated 11.07.2022 Along With Affidavit Stating Therein That Due To Continuous Lockdown On Account Of Spread Of Covid-19, The Assessee Could Not File The Present Appeal In Time, Therefore, He Prayed That Delay Of 784 Days In Filing The Present Appeal May Kindly Be Condoned. On The Other Hand, Ld. Cit-Dr Did Not Object To The Above Submission Of The Ld. Ar. Considering The Above, We Condone

disallowance of Rs.42,32,795/- and accepted the source for the cash deposit to the extent of Rs.66,77,205/-. It was the submission that the replies given by the assessee were insufficient and were just taken on record. It was not investigated or not enquired into, no details of agricultural income submitted, the types of crops raised, details