ITAT Cuttack Judgments — June 2022

M/S. ODISHA HYDRO POWER CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs ADDL.CIT, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 226/CTK/2015[2006-07]Status: Disposed22 Jun 2022AY 2006-07Partly Allowed

The tribunal held that interest income from short-term deposits made for business purposes should be netted against interest expenditure, effectively treating it as business income. For prior period expenses, the tribunal directed the AO to allow them in the year to which they relate.

M/S. ODISHA HYDRO POWER CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 454/CTK/2015[2006-07]Status: Disposed22 Jun 2022AY 2006-07Remanded

The Tribunal set aside the assessment order and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO is directed to first dispose of the objections filed by the assessee regarding the reopening of the assessment before continuing with the assessment.

ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR vs M/S. ORISSA HYDRO POWER CORPORATION LTD., BHUBANESWAR

ITA 297/CTK/2016[2009-10]Status: Disposed22 Jun 2022AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal followed the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Amway India Enterprises, holding that software expenses are revenue in nature. Consequently, the software expenditure incurred by the assessee was directed to be treated as revenue expenditure.

ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR vs M/S. ORISSA HYDRO POWER CORPORATION LTD., BHUBANESWAR

ITA 287/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: Disposed22 Jun 2022AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the provision for dam maintenance expenses was an allowable expenditure, relying on its previous decisions in the assessee's own cases for earlier assessment years. The Tribunal also addressed issues related to TDS on contractor payments and peripheral development expenses.

M/S. ODISHA HYDRO POWER CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 13/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed22 Jun 2022AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the provision for dam maintenance expenses was an allowable expenditure, relying on its previous decisions in the assessee's own cases for earlier assessment years. The Tribunal also addressed issues related to TDS on contractor payments and peripheral development expenses.

M/S. ODISHA HYDRO POWER CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 282/CTK/2016[2010-11]Status: Disposed22 Jun 2022AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the provision for dam maintenance expenses was an allowable expenditure, relying on its previous decisions in the assessee's own cases for earlier assessment years. The Tribunal also addressed issues related to TDS on contractor payments and peripheral development expenses.

M/S. ODISHA HYDRO POWER CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 283/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: Disposed22 Jun 2022AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the provision for dam maintenance expenses was an allowable expenditure, relying on its previous decisions in the assessee's own cases for earlier assessment years. The Tribunal also addressed issues related to TDS on contractor payments and peripheral development expenses.

DCIT, BHUBANESWAR vs M/S. ORISSA HYDRO POWER CORPORATION LTD., BHUBANESWAR

ITA 332/CTK/2015[2009-10]Status: Disposed22 Jun 2022AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the provision for dam maintenance expenses was an allowable expenditure, relying on its previous decisions in the assessee's own cases for earlier assessment years. The Tribunal also addressed issues related to TDS on contractor payments and peripheral development expenses.

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR vs M/S. ORISSA HYDRO POWER CORPORATION LTD., BHUBANESWAR

ITA 256/CTK/2014[2008-09]Status: Disposed22 Jun 2022AY 2008-09Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the provision for dam maintenance expenses was an allowable expenditure, relying on its previous decisions in the assessee's own cases for earlier assessment years. The Tribunal also addressed issues related to TDS on contractor payments and peripheral development expenses.

ACIT, BHUBANESWAR vs ORISSA HYDRO POWER CORPORATION LTD., BHUBANESWAR

ITA 225/CTK/2015[2006-07]Status: Disposed22 Jun 2022AY 2006-07Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the provision for dam maintenance expenses was an allowable expenditure, relying on its previous decisions in the assessee's own cases for earlier assessment years. The Tribunal also addressed issues related to TDS on contractor payments and peripheral development expenses.

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR vs M/S. ORISSA HYDRO POWER CORPORATION LTD., BHUBANESWAR

ITA 32/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed22 Jun 2022AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the provision for dam maintenance expenses was an allowable expenditure, relying on its previous decisions in the assessee's own cases for earlier assessment years. The Tribunal also addressed issues related to TDS on contractor payments and peripheral development expenses.

M/S. ODISHA HYDRO POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBAN\ESWAR

ITA 277/CTK/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed22 Jun 2022AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the provision for dam maintenance expenses was an allowable expenditure, relying on its previous decisions in the assessee's own cases for earlier assessment years. The Tribunal also addressed issues related to TDS on contractor payments and peripheral development expenses.

M/S. ODISHA HYDRO POWER CORPORATON LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs ACIT, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 339/CTK/2015[2009-10]Status: Disposed22 Jun 2022AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the provision for dam maintenance expenses was an allowable expenditure, relying on its previous decisions in the assessee's own cases for earlier assessment years. The Tribunal also addressed issues related to TDS on contractor payments and peripheral development expenses.

M/S. ODISHA HYDRO POWER CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 281/CTK/2016[2009-10]Status: Disposed22 Jun 2022AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal followed the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Amway India Enterprises, holding that software expenses are revenue in nature. Consequently, the software expenditure incurred by the assessee was directed to be treated as revenue expenditure.

ODISA HYDRO POWER CORPORATION LTD,BHUBANESWAR vs ACIT, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 180/CTK/2014[2008-09]Status: Disposed22 Jun 2022AY 2008-09Partly Allowed

The tribunal held that interest income from short-term deposits made for business purposes should be netted against interest expenditure, effectively treating it as business income. For prior period expenses, the tribunal directed the AO to allow them in the year to which they relate.

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR vs M/S. ORISSA HYDRO POWER CORPORATION LTD., BHUBANESWAR

ITA 255/CTK/2014[2007-08]Status: Disposed22 Jun 2022AY 2007-08Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the provision for dam maintenance expenses was an allowable expenditure, relying on its previous decisions in the assessee's own cases for earlier assessment years. The Tribunal also addressed issues related to TDS on contractor payments and peripheral development expenses.

ODISHA HYDRO POWER CORPORATION LTD,BHUBANESWAR vs ACIT, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 179/CTK/2014[2007-08]Status: Disposed22 Jun 2022AY 2007-08Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the provision for dam maintenance expenses was an allowable expenditure, relying on its previous decisions in the assessee's own cases for earlier assessment years. The Tribunal also addressed issues related to TDS on contractor payments and peripheral development expenses.

M/S. ODISHA HYDRO POWER CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 278/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed22 Jun 2022AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the provision for dam maintenance expenses was an allowable expenditure, relying on its previous decisions in the assessee's own cases for earlier assessment years. The Tribunal also addressed issues related to TDS on contractor payments and peripheral development expenses.

M/S. ORISSAN MINING CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 330/CTK/2019[2016-17]Status: Disposed21 Jun 2022AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal dismissed the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). The decision was based on the reasoning provided in a prior appeal for assessment year 2013-2014.

M/S-ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LTD,BHUBANESWAR vs PR.CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 186/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed21 Jun 2022AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the undervaluation of closing stock had no revenue effect as it was adjusted in the subsequent year's opening stock. It also found that CSR expenditure was allowable for the assessment year 2014-2015. Therefore, the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE -1(2), BHUBANESWAR vs M/S. POSCO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 423/CTK/2019[2015-16]Status: Heard21 Jun 2022AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that interest on fixed deposits is not taxable under income from other sources. The Tribunal followed its own earlier decisions in the assessee's own case for previous assessment years.

M/S. ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 37/CTK/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed21 Jun 2022AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO's estimation was erroneous as the assessee had provided a detailed statement of sales from Gandhamardan Block B stocked at Gandhamardan Block A, and the AO had not found any defects in it. Furthermore, the assessee had clarified that the sale to Hardev Steels was not from Gandhamardan Block A.

DY.CIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR vs M/S. ORISSA MINING CORPORATION PVT. LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 352/CTK/2019[2016-17]Status: Disposed21 Jun 2022AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the payments for NPV and compensatory afforestation were revenue in nature, as they were compulsory requirements for mining operations and did not result in enduring benefit to the assessee. The land and trees did not belong to the assessee.

M/S. GRM TRADING CO.,ANGUL vs ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 10/CTK/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed20 Jun 2022AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal held that while the reasons for reopening were valid, the AO failed to provide the assessee with the investigation report and an opportunity to cross-examine relevant persons. This constituted an irregularity in the assessment proceedings.

ORISSA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,CUTTACK vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 177/CTK/2020[2001-02]Status: Heard20 Jun 2022AY 2001-02Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessment order for AY 2001-2002 was liable to be quashed as no material found during the search was used for making the assessment for that year. This decision was based on the jurisdictional High Court's rulings.

RAJ KUMAR SHUKLA,ANGUL vs ITO, ANGUL WARD, ANGUL

ITA 156/CTK/2016[2012-13]Status: Disposed16 Jun 2022AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. This was to be done after providing the assessee with copies of all impounded materials, ensuring adequate opportunity for a fair hearing.

RAJ KUMAR SHUKLA,ANGUL vs ITO, ANGUL WARD, ANGUL

ITA 157/CTK/2016[2013-14]Status: Disposed16 Jun 2022AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. This was to be done after providing the assessee with copies of all impounded materials, ensuring adequate opportunity for a fair hearing.

SRI NARAYAN KUMAR KHAITAN, PROP: M/S. SRI GANESH METALIKS,SUNDARGARH vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR

ITA 175/CTK/2019[2015-16]Status: Heard14 Jun 2022AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the order passed under Section 263 was invalid because the notice was not properly served on the assessee, who was in judicial custody, and the assessee was not given an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the order passed under Section 263 was quashed.

PEOPLES FORUM,BHUBANESWAR vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD

ITA 44/CTK/2021[2016-17]Status: Disposed14 Jun 2022AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the original assessment order lacked examination of issues, justifying the CIT(E)'s direction to the AO for verification. The CIT(E)'s order under Section 263 was upheld.

SRI NARAYAN KUMAR KHAITAN, PROP: M/S. SRI GANESH METALIKS,SUNDARGARH vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR

ITA 173/CTK/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed14 Jun 2022AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the order passed under Section 263 was invalid because the notice was not properly served on the assessee, who was in judicial custody, and the assessee was not given an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the order passed under Section 263 was quashed.

SRI NARAYAN KUMAR KHAITAN, PROP: M/S. SRI GANESH METALIKS,SUNDARGARH vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR

ITA 172/CTK/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed14 Jun 2022AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that the order passed under Section 263 was invalid because the notice was not properly served on the assessee, who was in judicial custody, and the assessee was not given an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the order passed under Section 263 was quashed.

SRI NARAYAN KUMAR KHAITAN, PROP: M/S. SRI GANESH METALIKS,SUNDARGARH vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR

ITA 174/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed14 Jun 2022AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the order passed under Section 263 was invalid because the notice was not properly served on the assessee, who was in judicial custody, and the assessee was not given an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the order passed under Section 263 was quashed.

SRI NARAYAN KUMAR KHAITAN, PROP: M/S. SRI GANESH METALIKS,SUNDARGARH vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR

ITA 170/CTK/2019[2009-10]Status: Disposed14 Jun 2022AY 2009-10Allowed

The Tribunal held that the order passed under Section 263 was invalid because the notice was not properly served on the assessee, who was in judicial custody, and the assessee was not given an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the order passed under Section 263 was quashed.

SRI NARAYAN KUMAR KHAITAN, PROP: M/S. SRI GANESH METALIKS,SUNDARGARH vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR

ITA 171/CTK/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed14 Jun 2022AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal held that the order passed under Section 263 was invalid because the notice was not properly served on the assessee, who was in judicial custody, and the assessee was not given an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the order passed under Section 263 was quashed.

ORISSA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 43/CTK/2018[2013-14]Status: Heard13 Jun 2022AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The tribunal held that interest income from short-term deposits made for business purposes should be netted against interest expenditure, effectively treating it as business income. For prior period expenses, the tribunal directed the AO to allow them in the year to which they relate.

SIDHARTH CONSTRUCTION AND TRADING (P) LIMITED,CUTTACK vs PR.CIT, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 56/CTK/2021[2016-17]Status: Disposed13 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

ORISSA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 338/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: Heard13 Jun 2022AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The tribunal held that interest income from short-term deposits made for business purposes should be netted against interest expenditure, effectively treating it as business income. For prior period expenses, the tribunal directed the AO to allow them in the year to which they relate.

ORISSA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 276/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: Heard13 Jun 2022AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The tribunal held that interest income from short-term deposits should be set off against interest expenditure, effectively reducing the interest burden. For prior period expenses, the tribunal directed them to be allowed in the respective earlier years to which they relate.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BALASORE vs M/S. NILGIRI ENGINEERING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, BALASORE

ITA 178/CTK/2020[2016-17]Status: Heard9 Jun 2022AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 50 lakhs as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Consequently, the cross objection filed by the assessee was also dismissed as infructuous.

ASBM TRUST,KHURDA vs CIT(EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD

ITA 68/CTK/2021[F.Y. 2011-12 TO 2015-16]Status: Heard9 Jun 2022Allowed

The Tribunal quashed the CIT's order under Section 263, finding it unsustainable. This was primarily because the consequential assessment order passed by the AO to give effect to the revision resulted in no addition to the assessee's income.

M/S. EXIM INDIA OIL COMPANY LTD,CUTTACK vs DCIT, CUTTACK

ITA 70/CTK/2008[1998-99]Status: Disposed8 Jun 2022AY 1998-99Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's financial difficulties. The Tribunal restored the issues related to impounded documents to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, emphasizing the need to provide copies to the assessee.

ORISSA STEVEDORS LIMITED,CUTTACK vs PR.CIT, CUTTACK

ITA 257/CTK/2015[2010-11]Status: Heard7 Jun 2022AY 2010-11Dismissed

The tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application to settle the disputes under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Consequently, all the appeals filed by the assessee were treated as infructuous.

BAJRANG ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED,ROURKELA vs ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR

ITA 4/CTK/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed7 Jun 2022AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessment under Section 153C is restricted to the assessment year to which the information provided by the searching officer pertains. Since the information related to AY 2014-15 and not the subject AY 2010-11, the notice and subsequent assessment were invalid.

LIVOLINK FOUNDATION,BHUBANESWAR vs CIT(EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

ITA 102/CTK/2020[2016-17]Status: Heard7 Jun 2022AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had obtained subsequent recognition under Section 80G. As the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal, the Tribunal permitted the withdrawal.

ORISSA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs PRINCIPAL CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 59/CTK/2021[2016-17]Status: Heard7 Jun 2022AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the Pr. CIT admitted that the issue was debatable and to be adjudicated by the appellate authority, revision under Section 263 was not permissible. Therefore, the order passed under Section 263 was quashed.

KENDRAPARA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,KENDRAPARA vs ITO, KENDRAPARA WARD, KENDRAPARA

ITA 87/CTK/2021[2016-17]Status: Heard7 Jun 2022AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding reasonable cause. The appeal was admitted for hearing on the merits of the penalty levied.

ORISSA STEVEDORS LIMITED,CUTTACK vs ACIT, CUTTACK

ITA 258/CTK/2015[2010-11]Status: Heard7 Jun 2022AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and submitted the necessary declaration and form. Consequently, the appeals were rendered infructuous.

ORISSA STEVEDORS LIMITED,CUTTACK vs JCIT, RANGE-2, CUTTACK

ITA 223/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: Heard7 Jun 2022AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and submitted the necessary declaration and form. Consequently, the appeals were rendered infructuous.

ANGUL UNITED CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,ANGUL vs PR.CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 51/CTK/2021[2012-13]Status: Heard1 Jun 2022AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that an order passed under Section 264 of the Act is not an appealable order before the ITAT as it does not fall under the provisions of Section 253(1) of the Act. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.

XAVIER UNIVERSITY,PIPILI vs ITO(EEXEMPTIONS), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 455/CTK/2019[2019-20]Status: Heard1 Jun 2022AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the assessee already had registration under Section 12AA, proving the genuineness of its activities, the requirement to produce physical books and vouchers for 80G recognition was not necessary. Therefore, the denial of 80G recognition was set aside.