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) ..

2) of the Income Tax Act but in section 263 of the Act nowhere about service of order has been mentioned. Therefore, this argument of the assessee with regard to ground No.1, is dismissed". m) In the case of CIT vs. Hi-Tech Arai Limited (321 ITR 477), the Hon'ble Madras High Court held that there is no merit

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) ..

2) of the Income Tax Act but in section 263 of the Act nowhere about service of order has been mentioned. Therefore, this argument of the assessee with regard to ground No.1, is dismissed". m) In the case of CIT vs. Hi-Tech Arai Limited (321 ITR 477), the Hon'ble Madras High Court held that there is no merit

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) ..

2) of the Income Tax Act but in section 263 of the Act nowhere about service of order has been mentioned. Therefore, this argument of the assessee with regard to ground No.1, is dismissed". m) In the case of CIT vs. Hi-Tech Arai Limited (321 ITR 477), the Hon'ble Madras High Court held that there is no merit

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) ..

2) of the Income Tax Act but in section 263 of the Act nowhere about service of order has been mentioned. Therefore, this argument of the assessee with regard to ground No.1, is dismissed". m) In the case of CIT vs. Hi-Tech Arai Limited (321 ITR 477), the Hon'ble Madras High Court held that there is no merit

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

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

36,02,627/-. In the first appeal, the assessee has challenged the action of the ld.AO of not allowing the set off of brought forward business loss or unabsorbed depreciation whichever is lower as per the books of accounts as provided in clause (iii) of Explanation to Section 115JB(2

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

M/S. PRAGATI MILK PRODUCT PVT. LTD.,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for respective assessment years under consideration are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.143 To 145/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 To 2014-2015) M/S Pragati Milk Products(P) Ltd. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.71/A/1, New Industrial Estate, Jagatpur, Cuttack-754021 Pan No. :Aaecp 6353 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 12.10.2018, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0487/2017-18 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Facts In All The Cases Are Identical. It Was The Submission That There Was Search In The Premises Of The Assessee. As A Consequence Of Search, Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.153A Of The Act. In The Assessment U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Had Been Granted The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib(11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The Said Assessment Order Was The Subject Matter Of Rectification Application On Multiple Occasions & In The Third Round Of Rectification Application The Ao Has Withdrawn The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib (11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The 2

36,15,690/- which also included depreciation of Rs.40,35,943/-. In view of above facts, it was crystal clear that the assessee company had started commercial operations in F.Y. 2008-09 itself. The claim of the assessee that it had done only trial run and that the commercial production began after 31.03.2009, was found to be false. Accordingly

M/S. PRAGATI MILK PRODUCT PVT. LTD.,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for respective assessment years under consideration are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.143 To 145/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 To 2014-2015) M/S Pragati Milk Products(P) Ltd. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.71/A/1, New Industrial Estate, Jagatpur, Cuttack-754021 Pan No. :Aaecp 6353 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 12.10.2018, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0487/2017-18 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Facts In All The Cases Are Identical. It Was The Submission That There Was Search In The Premises Of The Assessee. As A Consequence Of Search, Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.153A Of The Act. In The Assessment U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Had Been Granted The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib(11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The Said Assessment Order Was The Subject Matter Of Rectification Application On Multiple Occasions & In The Third Round Of Rectification Application The Ao Has Withdrawn The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib (11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The 2

36,15,690/- which also included depreciation of Rs.40,35,943/-. In view of above facts, it was crystal clear that the assessee company had started commercial operations in F.Y. 2008-09 itself. The claim of the assessee that it had done only trial run and that the commercial production began after 31.03.2009, was found to be false. Accordingly

M/S. PRAGATI MILK PRODUCT PVT. LTD.,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for respective assessment years under consideration are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.143 To 145/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 To 2014-2015) M/S Pragati Milk Products(P) Ltd. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.71/A/1, New Industrial Estate, Jagatpur, Cuttack-754021 Pan No. :Aaecp 6353 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 12.10.2018, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0487/2017-18 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Facts In All The Cases Are Identical. It Was The Submission That There Was Search In The Premises Of The Assessee. As A Consequence Of Search, Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.153A Of The Act. In The Assessment U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Had Been Granted The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib(11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The Said Assessment Order Was The Subject Matter Of Rectification Application On Multiple Occasions & In The Third Round Of Rectification Application The Ao Has Withdrawn The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib (11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The 2

36,15,690/- which also included depreciation of Rs.40,35,943/-. In view of above facts, it was crystal clear that the assessee company had started commercial operations in F.Y. 2008-09 itself. The claim of the assessee that it had done only trial run and that the commercial production began after 31.03.2009, was found to be false. Accordingly

OMM SHREE REALCON PVT. LTD,BHUBANESWAR vs. PR.CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2018-19 Om Shree Realcon Pvt Ltd., Om Shree Realcon Pvt Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit- Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-1 Plot No.418, Forest Park, 8, Forest Park, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabco 3118 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ca S.K.Sarangi, Ca Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 28 /0 06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28 /0 /06/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

depreciation. IN01.04: Large investment in property (Form 26QB) as compared to total income. P a g e 9 | 31 Assessment Year : 2018-19 On going through the submission made by you to the notice u/s.`142(1) dated 1.12.2020, it is seen that the following details ae not yet furnished by you. 1. Copies of returns of income

ACIT, , SAMBALPUR vs. SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.219/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2019-2020) Acit, Sambalpur Vs Smt. Indrani Patnaik, A-6, Comercial Estate, Civil Township, Rourkela Pan No. :Accpp 6164 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.C.Bhadra, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/08/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 29.03.2023, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.Bhubaneswar-2/10625/2018-19 For The Assessment Year 2019-2020, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. The Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Made Towards Peripheral Development Charges Of Rs. 49,49,231/- As Such Expenditure Is Not Allowable As Per The Provisions Of Section 37 Of The Act. 2. The Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 10,69,56,849/- U/S 14A As The Assessee Has Exempt Income During The Year. 3. The Cit(A) Was Not Correct In Deleting The Addition U/S 14A Holding That Satisfaction Is Not Recorded By The Ao, When The Assessee Has Not Suomoto Disallowed Any Expenditure Related To Earning Exempt Income As Decided By The Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Maxopp Investment Ltd Dtd 12.02.2018. 4. The Cit(A) Was Not Correct In Deleting The Addition U/S 14A, When The Ao Has Given A Finding In The Assessment Order That The Assessee Has Shown Investment That Yielded Tax Free

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 also Tribunal had recorded a clear

BIKASH DEB,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT CIRCLE- 2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.357 & 388/Ctk/2019 /2019 Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010 10 & 2010-11 Bikash Dev Bikash Dev, Flat No.101, Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-2(1), Haraprity Haraprity Apar Apartment, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Vivekananda Vivekananda Marg, Marg, Old Old Town, Bhubaneswar. Town, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Ahepd 0737 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bal, Adv K.K.Bal, Adv Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/01 01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/01 /01/2023 O R D E R

36,726 MT of manganese ores from the years 2006-07 to 2009-10. Since the said income was not disclosed in the returns of income of Ay 2009-10 & Ay 2010-11, the A.o. had reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment. The information supplied by DDM, Joda being the appropriate authority, was authentic in nature. Hence after

BIKASH DEB,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.357 & 388/Ctk/2019 /2019 Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010 10 & 2010-11 Bikash Dev Bikash Dev, Flat No.101, Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-2(1), Haraprity Haraprity Apar Apartment, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Vivekananda Vivekananda Marg, Marg, Old Old Town, Bhubaneswar. Town, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Ahepd 0737 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bal, Adv K.K.Bal, Adv Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/01 01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/01 /01/2023 O R D E R

36,726 MT of manganese ores from the years 2006-07 to 2009-10. Since the said income was not disclosed in the returns of income of Ay 2009-10 & Ay 2010-11, the A.o. had reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment. The information supplied by DDM, Joda being the appropriate authority, was authentic in nature. Hence after

MS SHIVA JYOTI CONSTRUCTION,AT- PATTAMUNDAI vs. AO, NEAFC, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2018-2019 2019 M/S. M/S. Shiva Shiva Jyoti Jyoti Vs. The The Assessing Assessing Officer, Officer, Construction, At: Patrapur, Construction, At: Patrapur, Nfac, Delhi Nfac, Delhi Pattamundai, Kendrapara Pattamundai, Kendrapara Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Abqfs 8602 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, Sandeep Kumar Jena, Adv Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 05/0 06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/0 /06/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

depreciation over a turnover of Rs. 1,03,64,,45,352.00 thereby disclose taxable income at Rs.3, 42, 42,760.00 in the return. The appellant also received interest income on income tax refund and fixed deposits made in order to procure works contract by way of earnest money and security deposits. The copy of the audited financial statements is enclosed

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.

Section 263 of the Act is not correct and, prayed for quashing of the order passed u/s.263 of the Act by the ld. Pr.CIT. 6. Per Contra, the ld. CIT-DR supported the order of the ld. Pr.CIT and submitted that the assessee has claimed depreciation @30% on the block of plant and machinery which includes machinery used for construction

NATIONAL ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Girish Agrawalassessment Year : 2016-17 National National Aluminium Aluminium Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle -1(2), Company Limited., Nalco Company Limited., Nalco Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Bhawan, Bhawan, Nayapalli, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaacn 7449 M (Appellant) ) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Ca & Shri P. Venugopal Rao, Ca Venugopal Rao, Ca Revenue By : Dr.Abani Kanta Nayak, Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/11 11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/11 /11/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

depreciation at Rs. 4,68,68,569/- on 100% block of asset acquired of Rs. 12,81,03,727/-. Please explain how the same is admissible under the provisions of the Act. P a g e 3 | 13 Assessment Year : 2016-17 2. You have claimed deduction u/s 32AC of the Act. In this regard please furnish following details

MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD.,BURLA, SAMBALPUR. vs. DCIT CIRCLE2(1), SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue being ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Girish Agrawalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.14 To 17/Ctk/2023 & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.41/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2016-2017 To 2020-2021) Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Vs Acit/Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur-768020 Pan No. :Aabcm 5188 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.70 To 73/Ctk/2023 & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.147/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2016-2017 To 2020-2021) Acit/Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Vs Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur-768020 Pan No. :Aabcm 5188 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.69/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Acit/Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Vs Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur-768020 Pan No. :Aabcm 5188 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Poddar, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :

depreciation unfortunately has been held against the assessee in assessee’s own case in the earlier years. Thus, what is now happened that the intangible asset has accumulated even though the asset has expired in the form of expiry of the lease period. Thus, the balance sheet of the assessee would carry an asset which no Mahanadi Coalfields