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

In the result, appeals of the revenue as well as the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

assessment year 2007-08. Consequently, this issue is held in favour of the assessee. EXCESS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION 56. It was submitted by ld AR that the issue was in respect of depreciation in regard to building which had to be scrapped. It was the submission that the building was part of block

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

In the result, appeals of the revenue as well as the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

assessment year 2007-08. Consequently, this issue is held in favour of the assessee. EXCESS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION 56. It was submitted by ld AR that the issue was in respect of depreciation in regard to building which had to be scrapped. It was the submission that the building was part of block

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

In the result, appeals of the revenue as well as the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

assessment year 2007-08. Consequently, this issue is held in favour of the assessee. EXCESS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION 56. It was submitted by ld AR that the issue was in respect of depreciation in regard to building which had to be scrapped. It was the submission that the building was part of block

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

In the result, appeals of the revenue as well as the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

assessment year 2007-08. Consequently, this issue is held in favour of the assessee. EXCESS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION 56. It was submitted by ld AR that the issue was in respect of depreciation in regard to building which had to be scrapped. It was the submission that the building was part of block

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

In the result, appeals of the revenue as well as the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

assessment year 2007-08. Consequently, this issue is held in favour of the assessee. EXCESS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION 56. It was submitted by ld AR that the issue was in respect of depreciation in regard to building which had to be scrapped. It was the submission that the building was part of block

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

In the result, appeals of the revenue as well as the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

assessment year 2007-08. Consequently, this issue is held in favour of the assessee. EXCESS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION 56. It was submitted by ld AR that the issue was in respect of depreciation in regard to building which had to be scrapped. It was the submission that the building was part of block

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

In the result, appeals of the revenue as well as the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

assessment year 2007-08. Consequently, this issue is held in favour of the assessee. EXCESS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION 56. It was submitted by ld AR that the issue was in respect of depreciation in regard to building which had to be scrapped. It was the submission that the building was part of block

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

In the result, appeals of the revenue as well as the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

assessment year 2007-08. Consequently, this issue is held in favour of the assessee. EXCESS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION 56. It was submitted by ld AR that the issue was in respect of depreciation in regard to building which had to be scrapped. It was the submission that the building was part of block

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

In the result, appeals of the revenue as well as the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

assessment year 2007-08. Consequently, this issue is held in favour of the assessee. EXCESS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION 56. It was submitted by ld AR that the issue was in respect of depreciation in regard to building which had to be scrapped. It was the submission that the building was part of block

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

In the result, appeals of the revenue as well as the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

assessment year 2007-08. Consequently, this issue is held in favour of the assessee. EXCESS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION 56. It was submitted by ld AR that the issue was in respect of depreciation in regard to building which had to be scrapped. It was the submission that the building was part of block

ACIT, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for the assessment years

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

assessment year 2011-12 is that the CIT(A) erred in not allowing the correct depreciation after considering the sale of assets as per block

DHANESWAR RATH INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND MEDICAL SCIENCES,CUTTACK vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

assessment years, the assessee would not be entitled to depreciation. It is seen that the assessee had gross block of fixed

GURU MAHARAJ CONSTRUCTION,CUTTACK vs. PR CIT(CENTRAL) VISAKHAPATNAM, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.345/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) Guru Maharaj Construction, Vs Pr.Cit(Central) Visakhapatnam, Prativa Niwas, Arunodaya Bhubaneswar Market, Cuttack-753012 Pan No. :Aazpj 2025 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/07/2024 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 06.03.2014, In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1062072084(1) For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. For That The Order Of The Forum Below Is Arbitrary, Illegal & Unjust Both Is Fact & Law, Hence Liable To Be Quashed. 2. For That Pr. Cit(Central) Erred In Exercising Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The It Act By Substituting His Subjective Opinion In Place Of The Opinion Formed By The Assessing Office. Since No Jurisdiction U] S 263 Can Be Exercised On Change Of Opinion The Present Order Is Without Jurisdiction, Hence Liable To Be Quashed & Set Aside. 3. For That Ld. Pr. Cit Erred In Passing Order U/S. 263 Of The It Act By Going Against The Law Settled By The Jurisdiction High Court & Without Making A Minimal Enquiry. Therefore The Order Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act Is Illegal & Deserves To Be Quashed & Set Aside.

assessment was completed by the AO allowing depreciation on the block of assets and plant and machinery @30% as claimed

SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK,ROURKELA vs. ACIT, ROURKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA

In the result, appeals of the revenue and assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Manish Borad & Manish Borad & Manish Boradassessment Year : 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No. No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessment Year : 2015-16 C.O. No.01/Ctk/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Bhadra S.C. Bhadra , Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20 /10/ 20 / 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10 / 12 12/2021 O R D E R Per Bench The Cross The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Assessee Are Directed Against The Or Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 Der Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 For The P A G E 1 | 62

depreciation claimed by the assessee. Accordingly, ground No.2 of the revenue is dismissed. 34. Ground No:3 & 4 – Disallowance of Peripheral Development Expenses of Rs.9,44,35,647/- 3.1 The ld CIT(A) was not justified to delete the disallowance of Rs.9,44,35,647/- made by the AO towards “peripheral Development expenditure” totally ignoring the findings

ACIT, ROURKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA vs. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

In the result, appeals of the revenue and assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Manish Borad & Manish Borad & Manish Boradassessment Year : 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No. No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessment Year : 2015-16 C.O. No.01/Ctk/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Bhadra S.C. Bhadra , Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20 /10/ 20 / 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10 / 12 12/2021 O R D E R Per Bench The Cross The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Assessee Are Directed Against The Or Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 Der Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 For The P A G E 1 | 62

depreciation claimed by the assessee. Accordingly, ground No.2 of the revenue is dismissed. 34. Ground No:3 & 4 – Disallowance of Peripheral Development Expenses of Rs.9,44,35,647/- 3.1 The ld CIT(A) was not justified to delete the disallowance of Rs.9,44,35,647/- made by the AO towards “peripheral Development expenditure” totally ignoring the findings

M/S. ADITYA EARTH MOVERS,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. CIT, CUTTACK, CUTTACK

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-2011

assessment year and observed from the audited profit and loss account for the year ended on 31.3.2010, as per the schedule of fixed assets as on 31.03.2010, assessee has claimed depreciation of Rs.16,44,301/-. Out of such fixed assets, assessee has claimed depreciation on KOBOLO 210 Loader @12.5%, whereas depreciation @15% of the W.D.V is allowable as actual depreciation

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): ................ Relevant extract reproduced A bare reading of the foregoing provision suggests that reason to believe and escapement of income are the jurisdictional requirements for invoking section

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): ................ Relevant extract reproduced A bare reading of the foregoing provision suggests that reason to believe and escapement of income are the jurisdictional requirements for invoking section