RUKMANI INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.358/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Rukmani Infra Projects Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Plot No.251, District Centre, C.S.Pur, Bhubaneswar-16 Pan No. : Aaecr 1585 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit-Dr राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Has Been Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 16.06.2017, For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Extracted From The Available Records Are That, The Assessee, A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956, Engaged In The Business Of Erection, Commissioning, Technical & Maintenance Service To Different Power Plants. The Return Of Income For The Ay 2013-14 Was Filed By The Assessee On 01.10.2013 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,65,91,030/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected Under Cass. Notice U/S 143(2) & 143(1) Were Issued & Served On The Assessee. Assessment Proceedings Were Completed By The Ao & Concluded With An Addition Of Rs.3,58,95,574/- Under Four Different

depreciation would be allowed if the same is capital in nature. 100% disallowance without disputing the actual incurrence of the expenditure which is used for the purpose of the business of the assessee is unwarranted and bad in law. Therefore, this Ground of appeal is directed to restore back to files of AO to reassess the same in light

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. SRB CONSULTANCY PVT. LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for

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

depreciable assets, the Assessing Officer should have excluded Rs.51,876/- which pertained to ITA No. 566/CT K/ 2013 Asse ssment Year : 20 10- 201 1 assessee’s gain on sale of assets, which was offered for taxation under the head “other income”. He observed that the Assessing Officer apparently missed to see that a sum of Rs.51,876/- was really

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. IB VALLEY TRANSPORT, JHARSUGUDA

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-2010

section 32 of the Act, depreciation on motor vehicles used for own business is allowable @ 15% depreciation. Therefore, the CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the excess depreciation claimed by the assessee at Rs.43,74,093/-. 9. On the other hand, ld Authorised Representative of the assessee supported the order of the CIT(A). 10. We have heard

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

depreciation on the ground that the assessee is not engaged in the business of manufacturing or production of any article or thing. On appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer by following the various judicial decisions including the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT s. Sesa

DCIT, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. EAST INDIA MINERALS LTD., KEONJHAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

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

201 1 (ii) on the acquist5in of the deposits of such mineral or group of associated minerals or of any rights in or over such deposits; or (iii) of a capital nature in respect of any building, machinery, plant or furniture for which allowance by way of depreciation is admissible under section

SRI KUSHA APAT,KEONJHAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: The Cit(A), The Assessee Contended That It Has Filed Certificates Of Chartered Accountant In Respect Of 2 Nbfcs Namely;

201 3 inserted u/s.201(1) by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013 and was prospective in operation. 10. We find that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P Ld., 377 ITR 635 (Del) has held that the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is declaratory and curative in nature

INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AND ADVANCE GLOBAL EXCELLENCE (IMAGE),BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT(EXEMPTIONS), BHUBANESWAR

Bench: Me, Ld A.R. Of The Assessee Filed Assessment Orders For The Assessment Years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-2010 Passed

Section 32, he held that the assessee is not entitled to claim depreciation on leased assets and added Rs.7,68,058/- to the income of the assessee. 4. On appeal, ld CIT(A) observed that the claim of depreciation over and above claim of entire capital expenditure as application of income is not available in the Statute. No further depreciation

ORISSA COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT ,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year : 2015-2016

201 6 5. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Id CIT(A) has erred in holding that the appellant's claim of depreciation of Rs. 1,61,866.03 is inadmissible without appreciating the amended provision of Section

PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

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

depreciation of Rs.45,20,05,128/- instead of 6 & ITA No.02/CTK/2014 giving the direction to the learned AO vide his order dated 28.10.2013. 3. The assessee has raised 11 grounds in the appeal, out of which ground Nos.6,7,8,9,10 & 11 have not been pressed by ld. AR of the assessee at the time of hearing and made

BAITARANI GRAMYA BANK,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, BALASORE

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

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

section 36(1)(vii) of the Act dealing with Asse ssment Years : 2 008 -09 & 20 09- 201 0 allowance of bad debts written off by the assessee covers banking as well as non-banking assessees. He observed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank vs CIT (2010) 323 ITR 166 (SC) held as under

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.

depreciation was allowed overlooking section 8OVVA of the Act. Overlooking of a statutory provision is clearly a mistake apparent on record and on that basis, rectification under section 154 of the Act was clearly admissible. Impermissibility of deduction is not debatable if section 80VVA is applied. This being so, the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal erred

DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. S.M.CHARITABLE EDUCATIONAL TRUST, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

section 11 of the Act to the appellant. The Hon’ble Tribunal affirmed the order of the CIT(Appeals) directing A.O. to allow exemption u/s.11 and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue vide the above oder. For the previous year relevant to the A.Y. 2009-10, under consideration, the A.O. denied the exemption claimed u/s.ll in the year under consideration

DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. S.M.CHARITABLE EDUCATIONAL TRUST, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

section 11 of the Act to the appellant. The Hon’ble Tribunal affirmed the order of the CIT(Appeals) directing A.O. to allow exemption u/s.11 and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue vide the above oder. For the previous year relevant to the A.Y. 2009-10, under consideration, the A.O. denied the exemption claimed u/s.ll in the year under consideration

DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. S.M.CHARITABLE EDUCATIONAL TRUST, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

section 11 of the Act to the appellant. The Hon’ble Tribunal affirmed the order of the CIT(Appeals) directing A.O. to allow exemption u/s.11 and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue vide the above oder. For the previous year relevant to the A.Y. 2009-10, under consideration, the A.O. denied the exemption claimed u/s.ll in the year under consideration

M/S. MAA TARINI INDUSTRIES LTD.,SUNDARGARH vs. PR. CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-2015

201 5 the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue within meaning of section 263 of the Act. There fore the Pr.CIT order under section 263 setting aside the assessment be cancelled and AO's order under section 143(3) dated 30.12.2016 be restored. 5. Maintainability /Validity of Revisionary Proceedings towards disallowance of adjustment on account

SMT. SUJATA PANI,DHENKANAL vs. ITO, DHENKANAL WARD, DHENKANAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2012-2013

depreciation on motor car running for hire purposes is 30%. Asse ssment Year : 20 12- 201 3 3. In pursuance to order under section

SANJAYA KUMAR NANDA,SUNDERGARH vs. ITO, JHARSUGUDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2010-2011

depreciation of Rs.1,09,270/- alleging violation of section 40A(3) of the Act. 9. From a bare perusal of the order of the CIT(A), we find that this ground does not arise out of the order of the CIT(A) and, therefore, this ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Asse ssment Year : 20 10- 201

ACIT, CUTTACK vs. PARADIP PORT TRUST, JAGATSINGHPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2011-2012

Section 43B would not be applicable in the case of the Govt, of India and as such the liability has not been claimed in the P & L A/c. Similarly the other current liability namely audit fees payable to the C & AG, amounts payable to contractors and other payments were also part of the current liabilities which were explained