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

56. It was submitted by ld AR that the issue was in respect of depreciation in regard to building which had to be scrapped. It was the submission that the building was part of block of asset and the depreciation is allowable on the block of asset. A as and when any portion of that block of assets is discarded

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

56. It was submitted by ld AR that the issue was in respect of depreciation in regard to building which had to be scrapped. It was the submission that the building was part of block of asset and the depreciation is allowable on the block of asset. A as and when any portion of that block of assets is discarded

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

56. It was submitted by ld AR that the issue was in respect of depreciation in regard to building which had to be scrapped. It was the submission that the building was part of block of asset and the depreciation is allowable on the block of asset. A as and when any portion of that block of assets is discarded

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

56. It was submitted by ld AR that the issue was in respect of depreciation in regard to building which had to be scrapped. It was the submission that the building was part of block of asset and the depreciation is allowable on the block of asset. A as and when any portion of that block of assets is discarded

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

56. It was submitted by ld AR that the issue was in respect of depreciation in regard to building which had to be scrapped. It was the submission that the building was part of block of asset and the depreciation is allowable on the block of asset. A as and when any portion of that block of assets is discarded

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

56. It was submitted by ld AR that the issue was in respect of depreciation in regard to building which had to be scrapped. It was the submission that the building was part of block of asset and the depreciation is allowable on the block of asset. A as and when any portion of that block of assets is discarded

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

56. It was submitted by ld AR that the issue was in respect of depreciation in regard to building which had to be scrapped. It was the submission that the building was part of block of asset and the depreciation is allowable on the block of asset. A as and when any portion of that block of assets is discarded

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

56. It was submitted by ld AR that the issue was in respect of depreciation in regard to building which had to be scrapped. It was the submission that the building was part of block of asset and the depreciation is allowable on the block of asset. A as and when any portion of that block of assets is discarded

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

56. It was submitted by ld AR that the issue was in respect of depreciation in regard to building which had to be scrapped. It was the submission that the building was part of block of asset and the depreciation is allowable on the block of asset. A as and when any portion of that block of assets is discarded

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

56. It was submitted by ld AR that the issue was in respect of depreciation in regard to building which had to be scrapped. It was the submission that the building was part of block of asset and the depreciation is allowable on the block of asset. A as and when any portion of that block of assets is discarded

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

56. It was submitted by ld AR that the issue was in respect of depreciation in regard to building which had to be scrapped. It was the submission that the building was part of block of asset and the depreciation is allowable on the block of asset. A as and when any portion of that block of assets is discarded

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

56. It was submitted by ld AR that the issue was in respect of depreciation in regard to building which had to be scrapped. It was the submission that the building was part of block of asset and the depreciation is allowable on the block of asset. A as and when any portion of that block of assets is discarded

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.

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

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

56,849/- u/s.14A of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the facts of the case and submission of the assessee has deleted the addition. Against the order of the ld. CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before us. 11. During the course of hearing, ld. CIT-DR contended that the ld. CIT(A) without appreciating the fact

KAMAL KUMAR AGARWALLA,BHUBANESWAR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.58/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2016-2017) Vs Pr.Cit, Bhubaneswar Kamal Kumar Agarwalla, 87, Kharavela Nagar, Unit-Iii, Bhubaneswar-751001 Pan No. : Aaopa 1367 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agarwalla/B.L.Agarwal, Ars राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Made Against The Order Dated 20.03.2021, Passed By The Pr.Cit, Bhubaneswar For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, On The Following Grounds :- 1. That, The Order Passed U/S 263 By The Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Bhubaneswar For Doing Of De Novo Assessment Is Not Sustainable In View Of The Fact That, The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Is Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 2. That, Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Bhubaneswar Is Wrong In Directing The Ld. Assessing Officer To Make The De Novo Assessment In View Of The Fact That The Issued With Regard To The Capital Gain Was Examined By The Ld. Assessing Officer During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings By Issuing Of Notice U/S 142(1) Dated 15.12.2018 & Therefore The Revisional Order Passed U/S 263 Is Illegal & Liable To Be Quashed. 3. That, The Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Bhubaneswar Is Not Justified In Setting Aside The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) For The Purpose Of Verification Of Introduction Of Capital Which Had Been Verified By The Ld. Assessing Officer By Issuing

section 263 of the Act. In the context of the 7 present case if, as urged by the Revenue, the assessee has wrongly claimed depreciation on assets like land and building, it was incumbent upon the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax to undertake an inquiry as regards which of the assets were purchased and installed by the assessee

M/S. B.K. JENA & ASSOCIATES,KUJANG vs. PR. CIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. B.K.Jena & Associates, M/S. B.K.Jena & Associates, Vs. Pr. Cit, Cuttack Pr. Cit, Cuttack Rangiagarh, Rangiagarh, Jhimani, Jhimani, Kujang, Kujang, Jagatsinghpur Jagatsinghpur Pan/Gir No. No.Aagfb 4157 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty P.R.Mohanty, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit ( Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 16/9/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/ /9/2022 O R D E R Per Bench

depreciation on such assets. (h)The AO had also not examined whether there were any fresh cash credits/investments introduced during the year from the angle of applicability of Section 68 or 69 of the IT. Act. (i) The disclosed total income, excluding the interest income, was only Rs.2,34,669/- (Rs.3,91,774 - Rs.1,57,105), which is merely

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

RUKMANI INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.358/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Rukmani Infra Projects Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Plot No.251, District Centre, C.S.Pur, Bhubaneswar-16 Pan No. : Aaecr 1585 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit-Dr राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Has Been Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 16.06.2017, For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Extracted From The Available Records Are That, The Assessee, A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956, Engaged In The Business Of Erection, Commissioning, Technical & Maintenance Service To Different Power Plants. The Return Of Income For The Ay 2013-14 Was Filed By The Assessee On 01.10.2013 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,65,91,030/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected Under Cass. Notice U/S 143(2) & 143(1) Were Issued & Served On The Assessee. Assessment Proceedings Were Completed By The Ao & Concluded With An Addition Of Rs.3,58,95,574/- Under Four Different

56,620 9 15/02/2013 23/09/2013 10,00,118 10 15/03/2013 23/09/2013 9,06,116 11 15/04/2013 30/09/2013 9.75,852 T O T A L 126,76,279 7.4 So far as Employee’s Contribution is concerned Ld CITDR has supplied copies of certain case laws, which revenue has relied upon are as under: - i) Unifac Management Services (India

TRIJAL ENTERPRISES,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 4(1), BHUBANESWAR

Bench: S/Shri George Mathan & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Trijal Enterprises, Hall No.6, Vs. Acit, Circle-4(1), Fourth Floor, Bmc Bhawani Bhubaneswar Coom. Complex, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aakft 6687 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra,Ca P.K.Panda, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Dated 22.6.2020 In Appeal No.0366/2018-19 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm. The Partnership Firm Was Originally Constituted By Partnership Deed Dated 1.11.2015, Wherein, There Were Two Partners Namely; Shri Rajesh Polaki & Sri Malchit Chetan Kumar Patra. The Said Partnership Did Not Do Any Business. The Partnership Was Constituted For The Purpose Of Doing The Business Of Gold Jewellery. The Partnership Was Reconstituted On 1.3.2016, P A G E 1 | 37 Assessment Year : 2016-17

section 68 of the Act. Grounds No. 1 to 3 of the assessee's appeal are accordingly dismissed". b) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Navodaya Castles (P.) Ltd. (50 taxmann.com 110) wherein it was held that Certificate of incorporation, PANs etc. are not sufficient for the purpose of identification of shareholders when there