THE DHAMRA PORT COMPANY LIMITED,ODISHA vs. DCIT,CIRCLE 1(2), BHUBANESWAR, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, RAJASWA VIHAR, BHUBANESWAR, ORISSA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed with the direction

11 uncertain. With this basic principle of interpretation on hand, we move on to examine the rival contentions made by the parties as to whether clause (iii) it refers to consideration of year-wise separate figures of unabsorbed depreciation and loss brought forward or the composite figures. 12. Clause (iii) states that 'the amount of loss brought forward or unabsorbed

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

RONALD 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

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

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 INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,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

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

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

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,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

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

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

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

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

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

M/S. GRID CORPORATION OF ORISSA LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT-(TDS), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2009-2010 2010 Grid Corporation Of Orissa Grid Corporation Of Orissa Vs. Acit (Tds), Acit (Tds), Ltd., Ltd., Gridco Gridco House, House, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Janapath, Bhubaneswar. Janapath, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabcg 5398 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri Ved Jain/P.Venugopal Rao /P.Venugopal Rao, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/0 02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/0 /02/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, 1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 12.7.2019 In Appeal No. In Appeal No.0035/17-18 For The Assessment Year The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. S/Shri Ved Jain & P.Venugopal Rao, S/Shri Ved Jain & P.Venugopal Rao, Ld Ar Ld Ars Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

section 154 and was on a debatable issue. The Tribunal also upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). On appeal, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held in para-5 as under: P a g e 4 | 11 Assessment Year : 2009-2010 " 5. It is clear from the order of the Assessing Officer that depreciation

MODERN ENGLISH SCHOOL EDUCATION SOCIETY,KORAPUT vs. ITO (EXEMPTION WARD), BERHAMPUR

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialassessment Year : 2015-16 Modern Modern English English School School Vs. Ito (Exemption Ward) Ito (Exemption Ward) Education Education Society, Society, Berhampur Berhampur Parabeda, Parabeda, Jeypore, Jeypore, Dist: Dist: Koraput Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aacam 7223 Q (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : S/Shri P.K.Mishra, Adv/Kailash Panigrahi, Ca P.K.Mishra, Adv/Kailash Panigrahi, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 18 /0 04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 18 /0 /04/2023 O R D E R

Section 12A. it follows there from that the assessee which obtained registration u/s. 12AA of the Act during the pendency of appeal was entitled for exemption u/s 11 of the Act. 16. For the reasons quoted above, we set aside the orders of lower authorities and remand matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to compute the income

M/S. BHAGABATI BUILD & CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,CUTTACK vs. PRINCIPAL CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. M/S. Bhagbati Bhagbati Build Build & & Vs. Pr. Cit,-1, Bhubaneswar 1, Bhubaneswar Constructions Pvt Ltd., At: Constructions Pvt Ltd., At: Madhupatna, Po: Link Road, Ps: Madhupatna, Po: Link Road, Ps: Madhupatna, Cuttack Madhupatna, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aaecb 1801 D (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena Sandeep Kumar Jena, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 8/3/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29 / /3/2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg G, Jm

5 | 15 Assessment Year : 2016-17 proposition, ld A.R. referred to the decision of Mumbai ITAT in the case of Anil Shah v. ACIT [2007] 162 Taxman 39 (Mum.) (Trib.), wherein, it was held that recourse to Section 263(1) cannot be taken if the impugned order is erroneous but not prejudicial to the interest of the revenue