BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

42 results for “depreciation”+ Section 56clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,837Delhi1,643Bangalore683Ahmedabad451Chennai438Kolkata335Hyderabad222Jaipur198Chandigarh184Pune150Indore106Cochin85Raipur75Visakhapatnam65Amritsar64Surat63Lucknow49Karnataka45Ranchi44Cuttack42Rajkot40Guwahati34Jodhpur27SC24Nagpur24Agra13Allahabad11Telangana9Calcutta9Dehradun8Panaji7Kerala6Varanasi5Patna4Jabalpur2Rajasthan1Orissa1Gauhati1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 26342Addition to Income33Disallowance20Section 143(3)17Depreciation10Limitation/Time-bar9Section 14A8Condonation of Delay8Natural Justice8

MGM GREEN ENERGY LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 370/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 May 2024AY 2014-15

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/-

For Appellant: Sh A.K.Sabat & Sh B.K.Mahapatra, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115J

Showing 1–20 of 42 · Page 1 of 3

Revision u/s 2637
Section 115J5
Section 405
Section 123
Section 14A
Section 2
Section 36
Section 36(1)(iii)

56 & 57 relating to the charging of depreciation under the Companies Act. Further the AO referred to sub- section(2) to Section

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 255/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri S.C.Bhadra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 28Section 29Section 30Section 32Section 32(1)Section 34Section 43C

56,860/- liabilities. P a g e 1 | 7 ITA No. 255/CT K/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 12- 13 3. The facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation of Rs.10,39,569/- to the assessee on the ground that in the computation, the assessee has claimed both purchase of fixed assets and depreciation as utilisation

ACIT, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for the assessment years

ITA 397/CTK/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri S.S.Poddar/N.Kedia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT DR
Section 143(3)

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

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

ITA 255/CTK/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

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

ITA 277/CTK/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

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

ITA 278/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

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

ITA 282/CTK/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

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

ITA 332/CTK/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

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

ITA 256/CTK/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

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

ITA 287/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

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

ITA 13/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

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

ITA 225/CTK/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jun 2022AY 2006-07

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

ITA 32/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

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 CORPORATON LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the revenue as well as the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 339/CTK/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

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

ITA 283/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

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

ITA 114/CTK/2020[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack11 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

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.

For Appellant: Shri K.K.Bal, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr
Section 40Section 43B

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

ITA 219/CTK/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack06 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri S.C.Bhadra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 135Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 37Section 37(1)

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

ITA 339/CTK/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.339 & 340/Ctk/2016 Dcit, Corporate Circle1(2)/ Vs. National Aluminium Company Acit, Circle-2(2), Limited, Bhubaneswar Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.352 & 353/Ctk/2016 & Ita No.374/Ctk/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11, 2012-13 & 2011-12) National Aluminium Company Vs. Jcit Range-2/ Limited, Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2) Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & Cross Objection No.01/Ctk/2015 & 25/Ctk/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.376/Ctk/14 & Ita No.340/Ctk/2016) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012 & 2012-2013) National Aluminium Company Vs. Acit, Circle-2(2)/ Limited, Dcit, Corporate Circle- Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, 1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain/B.K.Mahapatra, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai, CIT DR
Section 14A

section 195 of the Act, there ought not be any addition/ disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act and the disallowance of the said Rs. 4,36,5942/- is contrary to facts, arbitrary, unjustified, erroneous and bad in law. c. That the learned CIT(Appeals) stating that no explanation has been offered in respect of the aforesaid addition/disallowance

M/S. MAA TARINI INDUSTRIES LTD.,SUNDARGARH vs. PR. CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 292/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-2015

For Appellant: Shri M.R.Sahu, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

depreciation has been allowed to be set off, which was liable to be added back to the total income of the assessee. Further, the Pr. CIT observed that the MAT credit of Rs.26,33,135/- was not admissible in assessment year 2014-15 and MAT credit of Rs.,19,40,110/- carried forward to next assessment year was also inadmissible

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 58/CTK/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack04 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwalla/B.L.Agarwal, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

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