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

RASMITA PANDA,CUTTACK vs. ITO WARD1(1), CUTTACK

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiarasmita Panda, I.T.O., D/O- R C Panda, Kanehipur, Crri, Ward- 1(1), Vs. Cuttack-753006 (Odisha) Cuttack. Pan No. Dbupp 9233 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

section 147 and addition of the entire gross commission income of Rs. 30,00,000, along with depreciation disallowance, is arbitrary

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

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

30 /3/ 20 / 2022 Date of Pronouncement : 17 / 05 /2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg g, JM This is an appeal filed by the assessee a This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order u/s.263 of gainst the order u/s.263 of the Income tax Act, 1961 of the CIT(E), Hyderabad dated 31.3.2021 the Income

B.C. BHUYAN CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE- 1(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Girish Agrawalwalassessment Year : 2014-15 B.C.Bhuyan Construction Pvt B.C.Bhuyan Construction Pvt Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle Dcit, Corporate Circle - Ltd., Plot No.90, Palasuni, Ltd., Plot No.90, Palasuni, 1(1), Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aadcb 3304 N (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C.Sethi, Adv Revenue By Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Mahapatra, Saroj Kumar Mahapatra, Pr. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/07 7/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/0 /07/2023

30] This line of thinking is also supported by the interpretative process of enquiry. One has to determine whether each item of heterogeneous material comes under the definition of Plant mentioned in section 32 (1) or not. Then, if it is a plant one has to go to proviso to see whether any item of such Plant utilized

M/S. FAYAJ INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. M/S. Fayaj Fayaj Infratech Infratech Pvt Pvt Vs. Dcit, Circle 1(1), Aayakar Dcit, Circle 1(1), Aayakar Ltd., C-56, 56, Baramunda Baramunda Bhavan, Bhubaneswar. Bhavan, Bhubaneswar. Housing Housing Board Board Colony, Colony, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabcf 6797 R (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bal, Ar K.K.Bal, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11 /01 01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/01 /01/2023 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 11.12.2019 In Appeal No. In Appeal No. 0509/17-18 For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Shri K.K.Bal, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Shri K.K.Bal, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Shri K.K.Bal, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue. Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

section 43B of the Act, the second is in respect of non-allowance of higher rate of depreciation in respect of heavy earth moving machinery used by the assessee in its business on construction of roads, the third issue being the disallowance at 100% as against 30

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

30. Ground No.1 of appeal for the assessment year 2007-08, 2008-09,2009-10, 2011-12 and only ground in A.Y. 2012-13 in revenue’s appeals relates to “provision for Dam Maintenance”. P a g e 14 | 35 Orissa Hydro Power Corporation Ltd., 31. In line with our decision while adjudicating this issue for the assessment year

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

30. Ground No.1 of appeal for the assessment year 2007-08, 2008-09,2009-10, 2011-12 and only ground in A.Y. 2012-13 in revenue’s appeals relates to “provision for Dam Maintenance”. P a g e 14 | 35 Orissa Hydro Power Corporation Ltd., 31. In line with our decision while adjudicating this issue for the assessment year

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

30. Ground No.1 of appeal for the assessment year 2007-08, 2008-09,2009-10, 2011-12 and only ground in A.Y. 2012-13 in revenue’s appeals relates to “provision for Dam Maintenance”. P a g e 14 | 35 Orissa Hydro Power Corporation Ltd., 31. In line with our decision while adjudicating this issue for the assessment year

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

30. Ground No.1 of appeal for the assessment year 2007-08, 2008-09,2009-10, 2011-12 and only ground in A.Y. 2012-13 in revenue’s appeals relates to “provision for Dam Maintenance”. P a g e 14 | 35 Orissa Hydro Power Corporation Ltd., 31. In line with our decision while adjudicating this issue for the assessment year

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

30. Ground No.1 of appeal for the assessment year 2007-08, 2008-09,2009-10, 2011-12 and only ground in A.Y. 2012-13 in revenue’s appeals relates to “provision for Dam Maintenance”. P a g e 14 | 35 Orissa Hydro Power Corporation Ltd., 31. In line with our decision while adjudicating this issue for the assessment year

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

30. Ground No.1 of appeal for the assessment year 2007-08, 2008-09,2009-10, 2011-12 and only ground in A.Y. 2012-13 in revenue’s appeals relates to “provision for Dam Maintenance”. P a g e 14 | 35 Orissa Hydro Power Corporation Ltd., 31. In line with our decision while adjudicating this issue for the assessment year

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

30. Ground No.1 of appeal for the assessment year 2007-08, 2008-09,2009-10, 2011-12 and only ground in A.Y. 2012-13 in revenue’s appeals relates to “provision for Dam Maintenance”. P a g e 14 | 35 Orissa Hydro Power Corporation Ltd., 31. In line with our decision while adjudicating this issue for the assessment year

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

30. Ground No.1 of appeal for the assessment year 2007-08, 2008-09,2009-10, 2011-12 and only ground in A.Y. 2012-13 in revenue’s appeals relates to “provision for Dam Maintenance”. P a g e 14 | 35 Orissa Hydro Power Corporation Ltd., 31. In line with our decision while adjudicating this issue for the assessment year

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

30. Ground No.1 of appeal for the assessment year 2007-08, 2008-09,2009-10, 2011-12 and only ground in A.Y. 2012-13 in revenue’s appeals relates to “provision for Dam Maintenance”. P a g e 14 | 35 Orissa Hydro Power Corporation Ltd., 31. In line with our decision while adjudicating this issue for the assessment year

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

30. Ground No.1 of appeal for the assessment year 2007-08, 2008-09,2009-10, 2011-12 and only ground in A.Y. 2012-13 in revenue’s appeals relates to “provision for Dam Maintenance”. P a g e 14 | 35 Orissa Hydro Power Corporation Ltd., 31. In line with our decision while adjudicating this issue for the assessment year

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

30. Ground No.1 of appeal for the assessment year 2007-08, 2008-09,2009-10, 2011-12 and only ground in A.Y. 2012-13 in revenue’s appeals relates to “provision for Dam Maintenance”. P a g e 14 | 35 Orissa Hydro Power Corporation Ltd., 31. In line with our decision while adjudicating this issue for the assessment year

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

30. Ground No.1 of appeal for the assessment year 2007-08, 2008-09,2009-10, 2011-12 and only ground in A.Y. 2012-13 in revenue’s appeals relates to “provision for Dam Maintenance”. P a g e 14 | 35 Orissa Hydro Power Corporation Ltd., 31. In line with our decision while adjudicating this issue for the assessment year

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) ..

30 DTR 413, wherein it was held that "the assessment order passed on 28.12.2007 but served on 02.01.2008, beyond the period of limitation of 31.12.2007 was barred by limitation and thus non-est in law". On appeal, the Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT held in paras-7 to 8 as under: "7. We have carefully considered the submissions of the rival

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) ..

30 DTR 413, wherein it was held that "the assessment order passed on 28.12.2007 but served on 02.01.2008, beyond the period of limitation of 31.12.2007 was barred by limitation and thus non-est in law". On appeal, the Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT held in paras-7 to 8 as under: "7. We have carefully considered the submissions of the rival