MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD.,SAMBALPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), SAMBALPUR

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

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.174/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015 - 2016) Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcm 5188 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Podar, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.M.Keshkamat, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am :

depreciation on the cost of leasehold land shall be allowed alternatively U/s.37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 or any other section deem appropriate by the Hon' ble Bench. 3 Valuation of closing stock of coal Rs.11840.00 Grounds of (due to impact of overburden lakhs Appeal No.3(2) removal expenditure) Page ref. of Asst. order:4-6 Page ref.of

ADHIKAR,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

29 provides that income from profits and gains of business shall be computed in accordance with P a g e 2 | 7 ITA No. 255/CT K/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 12- 13 section 30 to section 43C. That, section 32(1) of the Act provides for depreciation

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 rate prescribed in schedule II read with sub- section 2 of section 123 of the Companies Act, 2013. 3 4. Against this, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Therefore, the present appeal is preferred by the assessee before us. Ground No.(i): 5. This ground is general

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

section 32(1) and, therefore, there is no question of allowing depreciation on said rights. 46. We find that the assessee has raised these additional grounds as per the direction of Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack in W.P (C) No.24 of 2013 and Misc. Case No.5716 of 2013 order dated 20.3.2013. In view of above, we admit these

BIBHUDUTTA PANDA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ASST.CIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.76 To 81/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-2008 To 2012-2013) Bibhudutta Panda, Vs Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Plot No.73 & 74, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. :Adapp 6398 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

29 ITA Nos.76-81/CTK/2022 Act passed by the learned Commissioner was barred by period of limitation, as provided under sub-section (2) of section 263 of the Act. i) In the case of CIT vs. Subrata Roy (45 taxmann.com 513), the Hon'ble Kolkata ITAT observed that "But in the present case before us, it is a fact that despite repeated

BIBHUDUTTA PANDA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ASST.CIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.76 To 81/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-2008 To 2012-2013) Bibhudutta Panda, Vs Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Plot No.73 & 74, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. :Adapp 6398 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

29 ITA Nos.76-81/CTK/2022 Act passed by the learned Commissioner was barred by period of limitation, as provided under sub-section (2) of section 263 of the Act. i) In the case of CIT vs. Subrata Roy (45 taxmann.com 513), the Hon'ble Kolkata ITAT observed that "But in the present case before us, it is a fact that despite repeated

BIBHUDUTTA PANDA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ASST.CIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.76 To 81/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-2008 To 2012-2013) Bibhudutta Panda, Vs Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Plot No.73 & 74, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. :Adapp 6398 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

29 ITA Nos.76-81/CTK/2022 Act passed by the learned Commissioner was barred by period of limitation, as provided under sub-section (2) of section 263 of the Act. i) In the case of CIT vs. Subrata Roy (45 taxmann.com 513), the Hon'ble Kolkata ITAT observed that "But in the present case before us, it is a fact that despite repeated

BIBHUDUTTA PANDA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ASST.CIT ,CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.76 To 81/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-2008 To 2012-2013) Bibhudutta Panda, Vs Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Plot No.73 & 74, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. :Adapp 6398 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

29 ITA Nos.76-81/CTK/2022 Act passed by the learned Commissioner was barred by period of limitation, as provided under sub-section (2) of section 263 of the Act. i) In the case of CIT vs. Subrata Roy (45 taxmann.com 513), the Hon'ble Kolkata ITAT observed that "But in the present case before us, it is a fact that despite repeated

BIBHUDUTTA PANDA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ASST.CIT CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.76 To 81/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-2008 To 2012-2013) Bibhudutta Panda, Vs Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Plot No.73 & 74, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. :Adapp 6398 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

29 ITA Nos.76-81/CTK/2022 Act passed by the learned Commissioner was barred by period of limitation, as provided under sub-section (2) of section 263 of the Act. i) In the case of CIT vs. Subrata Roy (45 taxmann.com 513), the Hon'ble Kolkata ITAT observed that "But in the present case before us, it is a fact that despite repeated

BIBHUDUTTA PANDA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ASST.CIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.76 To 81/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-2008 To 2012-2013) Bibhudutta Panda, Vs Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Plot No.73 & 74, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. :Adapp 6398 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

29 ITA Nos.76-81/CTK/2022 Act passed by the learned Commissioner was barred by period of limitation, as provided under sub-section (2) of section 263 of the Act. i) In the case of CIT vs. Subrata Roy (45 taxmann.com 513), the Hon'ble Kolkata ITAT observed that "But in the present case before us, it is a fact that despite repeated

ACIT, BALASORE vs. M/S. SANTOSH KUMAR KHANDELWAL, MAYURBHANJ

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Section 40A(3) of the Act and addition of closing stock Rs.23,04,308/- and assessed total income at Rs.1,51,68,080/- and passed the order u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 13.03.2014. 5. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed an appeal with the CIT(A). In the appellate proceedings, the ld. AR of the assessee

SANTOSH KUMAR KHANDELWAL,MAYURBHANJ vs. ACIT, BALASORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Section 40A(3) of the Act and addition of closing stock Rs.23,04,308/- and assessed total income at Rs.1,51,68,080/- and passed the order u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 13.03.2014. 5. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed an appeal with the CIT(A). In the appellate proceedings, the ld. AR of the assessee

DCIT,CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/SD. SRB CONSULTANCY (P) LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed

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

Section 68, being just 86 proper be upheld 8& the departmental ground on this account be dismissed. 3. For that even if assuming but not admitting that as held by the CIT (A) the disclosed receipt of Rs. 29,61,593/- disclosed under the head business income voluntarily are to be treated as rental income under the head "Income from

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

29,79,923/- by including accumulated depreciation in respect of earlier assessment years. It was the submission that the issue of prior period expenses itself wasalready in appeal before the Tribunal and the Pr. CIT after proposing this addition, further goes on to say in para 7.4 that “ since the issue is already in appeal, he does not propose

NATIONAL ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.197/Ctk/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Asst.Cit, Corporate Circle- Vs. National Aluminium Company 1(2), Bhubaneswar Limited, Nalco Bhawan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.211/Ctk/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2013-2014) National Aluminium Company Vs. Asst.Cit, Corporate Circle- Limited, 1(2), Bhubaneswar Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & Cross Objection No.10/Ctk/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.197/Ctk/2017) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2013-2014) National Aluminium Company Vs. Asst.Cit, Corporate Circle- Limited, 1(2), Bhubaneswar Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.K.Mahapatra,Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Saad Kidwai, Citdr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 27/06/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 29/06/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue & Cross Objection By The Assessee, Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Co No.10/Ctk/2018 Bhubaneswar, Passed In It Appeal No.0511/15-16, Dated 03.02.2017 For The Assessment Years 2013-2014. 2. Since Issues In Both The Appeals Are Common, They Were Heard

depreciation u/s.32(1)(iia) of the Act. Accordingly, we allow this ground of assessee for statistical purposes. 18. Ground No.5 relates to disallowance u/s.14A of the Act. The AO has made the disallowance of Rs.5,19,29,172/- by invoking the provisions of Section

ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. NATIONAL ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.197/Ctk/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Asst.Cit, Corporate Circle- Vs. National Aluminium Company 1(2), Bhubaneswar Limited, Nalco Bhawan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.211/Ctk/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2013-2014) National Aluminium Company Vs. Asst.Cit, Corporate Circle- Limited, 1(2), Bhubaneswar Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & Cross Objection No.10/Ctk/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.197/Ctk/2017) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2013-2014) National Aluminium Company Vs. Asst.Cit, Corporate Circle- Limited, 1(2), Bhubaneswar Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.K.Mahapatra,Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Saad Kidwai, Citdr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 27/06/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 29/06/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue & Cross Objection By The Assessee, Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Co No.10/Ctk/2018 Bhubaneswar, Passed In It Appeal No.0511/15-16, Dated 03.02.2017 For The Assessment Years 2013-2014. 2. Since Issues In Both The Appeals Are Common, They Were Heard

depreciation u/s.32(1)(iia) of the Act. Accordingly, we allow this ground of assessee for statistical purposes. 18. Ground No.5 relates to disallowance u/s.14A of the Act. The AO has made the disallowance of Rs.5,19,29,172/- by invoking the provisions of 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