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/-

44,82,488/- was made u/s.14A of the Act by holding that the borrowed funds were utilised in making investments which yielded exempt income. Also held that such addition made u/s 14A is to be added to the book profit computed in terms of section 115JB of the Act. Further the depreciation

M/S. ADITYA EARTH MOVERS,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. CIT, CUTTACK, CUTTACK

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

44,301/-. Out of such fixed assets, assessee has claimed depreciation on KOBOLO 210 Loader @12.5%, whereas depreciation @15% of the W.D.V is allowable as actual depreciation on such assets in general and half of allowable rate where the assets are put to use is less than 180 days during the previous year. He observed that this asset was purchased

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

44,508.00 under section 43B of the Act by confirming the said figure arising out of an a of rectification under section 154 of the Act, therefore the additional is not sustainable. D. That both the authorities by following the rectification order under section 154 of the Act have also added and confirmed Rs.51,36,150.00 on account of alleged

ITO, BHUBANESWAR vs. ORISSA COMPUTER APPLICATION CENTRE, BHUBANESWAR

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

sections 28 to 44 of the I.T Act,1961. The audited income and expenditure account of the society for the year ended 31.03.2002 revealed the following position SI No Particulars of Income Amount (in Rs) i Training fees 21,26,675=00 ii JLT Fees 2,11,700=00 iii Consultancy charges 18,45,287=00 iv Govt. Grant

M/S. ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am

depreciation of Rs. 44,31,012/- on addition to assets during the relevant assessment year is illegal and not in line with the provisions of income tax Act, 1961. 3. Disallowance of mine closure plan (MCP) expenses of Rs.1,97,00,000/- being a provision is incorrect and bad in law as the said expenditure have been accounted

ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am

depreciation of Rs. 44,31,012/- on addition to assets during the relevant assessment year is illegal and not in line with the provisions of income tax Act, 1961. 3. Disallowance of mine closure plan (MCP) expenses of Rs.1,97,00,000/- being a provision is incorrect and bad in law as the said expenditure have been accounted

ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DICT, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am

depreciation of Rs. 44,31,012/- on addition to assets during the relevant assessment year is illegal and not in line with the provisions of income tax Act, 1961. 3. Disallowance of mine closure plan (MCP) expenses of Rs.1,97,00,000/- being a provision is incorrect and bad in law as the said expenditure have been accounted

M/S. ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am

depreciation of Rs. 44,31,012/- on addition to assets during the relevant assessment year is illegal and not in line with the provisions of income tax Act, 1961. 3. Disallowance of mine closure plan (MCP) expenses of Rs.1,97,00,000/- being a provision is incorrect and bad in law as the said expenditure have been accounted

M/S. ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am

depreciation of Rs. 44,31,012/- on addition to assets during the relevant assessment year is illegal and not in line with the provisions of income tax Act, 1961. 3. Disallowance of mine closure plan (MCP) expenses of Rs.1,97,00,000/- being a provision is incorrect and bad in law as the said expenditure have been accounted

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

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

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 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

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,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