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

25 | 35 Orissa Hydro Power Corporation Ltd., assessment year and consequently, the assessee was entitled to claim depreciation in respect of the building. 57. Ld CIT DR submitted that a building which had a WDV is Rs.9,51,320/- had become un useful should be discarded. It was the submission that the depreciation of said asset, which was not used

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

25 | 35 Orissa Hydro Power Corporation Ltd., assessment year and consequently, the assessee was entitled to claim depreciation in respect of the building. 57. Ld CIT DR submitted that a building which had a WDV is Rs.9,51,320/- had become un useful should be discarded. It was the submission that the depreciation of said asset, which was not used

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

25 | 35 Orissa Hydro Power Corporation Ltd., assessment year and consequently, the assessee was entitled to claim depreciation in respect of the building. 57. Ld CIT DR submitted that a building which had a WDV is Rs.9,51,320/- had become un useful should be discarded. It was the submission that the depreciation of said asset, which was not used

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

25 | 35 Orissa Hydro Power Corporation Ltd., assessment year and consequently, the assessee was entitled to claim depreciation in respect of the building. 57. Ld CIT DR submitted that a building which had a WDV is Rs.9,51,320/- had become un useful should be discarded. It was the submission that the depreciation of said asset, which was not used

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

25 | 35 Orissa Hydro Power Corporation Ltd., assessment year and consequently, the assessee was entitled to claim depreciation in respect of the building. 57. Ld CIT DR submitted that a building which had a WDV is Rs.9,51,320/- had become un useful should be discarded. It was the submission that the depreciation of said asset, which was not used

DCIT, 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

25 | 35 Orissa Hydro Power Corporation Ltd., assessment year and consequently, the assessee was entitled to claim depreciation in respect of the building. 57. Ld CIT DR submitted that a building which had a WDV is Rs.9,51,320/- had become un useful should be discarded. It was the submission that the depreciation of said asset, which was not used

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

25 | 35 Orissa Hydro Power Corporation Ltd., assessment year and consequently, the assessee was entitled to claim depreciation in respect of the building. 57. Ld CIT DR submitted that a building which had a WDV is Rs.9,51,320/- had become un useful should be discarded. It was the submission that the depreciation of said asset, which was not used

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

25 | 35 Orissa Hydro Power Corporation Ltd., assessment year and consequently, the assessee was entitled to claim depreciation in respect of the building. 57. Ld CIT DR submitted that a building which had a WDV is Rs.9,51,320/- had become un useful should be discarded. It was the submission that the depreciation of said asset, which was not used

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

25 | 35 Orissa Hydro Power Corporation Ltd., assessment year and consequently, the assessee was entitled to claim depreciation in respect of the building. 57. Ld CIT DR submitted that a building which had a WDV is Rs.9,51,320/- had become un useful should be discarded. It was the submission that the depreciation of said asset, which was not used

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

25 | 35 Orissa Hydro Power Corporation Ltd., assessment year and consequently, the assessee was entitled to claim depreciation in respect of the building. 57. Ld CIT DR submitted that a building which had a WDV is Rs.9,51,320/- had become un useful should be discarded. It was the submission that the depreciation of said asset, which was not used

MGM GREEN ENERGY LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.370/Ctk/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015) Mgm Green Energy Limited, Vs Jcit, Range Rourkela, Rourkela 5-A, Forest Park, Bhubaneswar Pan No. :Aahcm 8472 C (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Sh A.K.Sabat & Sh B.K.Mahapatra, Cas राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/05/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1. Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.06.2019, In I.T.Appeal No.0388/16-17 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2. The Assessee Has Taken As Many As Six Grounds Of Appeal, Relating To Various Additions/Disallowances Made To The Income Declared By The Assessee & Also Against The Adjustments Made In The Book Profit U/S.115Jb Of The Act. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- I) The Ld. Cit(A) Is Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee, Which Is Arbitrary, Erroneous & Bad, Both In The Eyes Of Law. Ii) Disallowance Of Interest Expenses U/S.36(Iii) Of The Act At Rs.1,65,18,400/-; Iii) Disallowance Of Expenses U/S.14A Of The Act/Rule 8D Of It Rules At Rs.2,44,82,488/-; Iv) Addition Of Disallowance Of Expenses U/S.14A At Rs.2,44,82,488/- In The Book Profit As Computed U/S 115Jb; V) Addition/Disallowance Of Expenses U/S.115Jb Of The Act Under The Book Profits; Vi) Disallowance Of Differential Depreciation Of Rs.1,16,63,697/-

depreciation reserves and, thus, entire investment had been made in sister concern out of interest-free funds - Commissioner (Appeals) accepted assessee's contention and directed Assessing Officer to allow entire amount of interest under section 36(1)(iii) - Tribunal upheld order of Commissioner (Appeals) - On instant appeal, it was seen that Commissioner (Appeals) as 10 also Tribunal had recorded

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.

25,107/- which includes depreciation on plant and machinery of Rs.2,49,98,060/- as per IT Act 1961. On examination of records it is noticed that the assessee has claimed depreciation @30% on certain plant and machinery though the assessee is engaged in the business of construction. The assessee has shown hiring income of Rs.22,44,997/- which constitutes

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 154 of the Act have also added and confirmed Rs.51,36,150.00 on account of alleged excess claim of depreciation of under ground Storage Tank and Empty Barrels whereas the Appellant is entitled for 100% depreciation but both the authorities restricted the same to 25

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 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

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 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