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. 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

57. Ld CIT DR submitted that a building which had a WDV is Rs.9,51,320/- had become un useful should be discarded. It was the submission that the depreciation of said asset, which was not used during the relevant assessment year was liable to be disallowed. 58. We have considered the rival submissions. Once an asset has become

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

57. Ld CIT DR submitted that a building which had a WDV is Rs.9,51,320/- had become un useful should be discarded. It was the submission that the depreciation of said asset, which was not used during the relevant assessment year was liable to be disallowed. 58. We have considered the rival submissions. Once an asset has become

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

57. Ld CIT DR submitted that a building which had a WDV is Rs.9,51,320/- had become un useful should be discarded. It was the submission that the depreciation of said asset, which was not used during the relevant assessment year was liable to be disallowed. 58. We have considered the rival submissions. Once an asset has become

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

57. Ld CIT DR submitted that a building which had a WDV is Rs.9,51,320/- had become un useful should be discarded. It was the submission that the depreciation of said asset, which was not used during the relevant assessment year was liable to be disallowed. 58. We have considered the rival submissions. Once an asset has become

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

57. Ld CIT DR submitted that a building which had a WDV is Rs.9,51,320/- had become un useful should be discarded. It was the submission that the depreciation of said asset, which was not used during the relevant assessment year was liable to be disallowed. 58. We have considered the rival submissions. Once an asset has become

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

57. Ld CIT DR submitted that a building which had a WDV is Rs.9,51,320/- had become un useful should be discarded. It was the submission that the depreciation of said asset, which was not used during the relevant assessment year was liable to be disallowed. 58. We have considered the rival submissions. Once an asset has become

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

57. Ld CIT DR submitted that a building which had a WDV is Rs.9,51,320/- had become un useful should be discarded. It was the submission that the depreciation of said asset, which was not used during the relevant assessment year was liable to be disallowed. 58. We have considered the rival submissions. Once an asset has become

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

57. Ld CIT DR submitted that a building which had a WDV is Rs.9,51,320/- had become un useful should be discarded. It was the submission that the depreciation of said asset, which was not used during the relevant assessment year was liable to be disallowed. 58. We have considered the rival submissions. Once an asset has become

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

57. Ld CIT DR submitted that a building which had a WDV is Rs.9,51,320/- had become un useful should be discarded. It was the submission that the depreciation of said asset, which was not used during the relevant assessment year was liable to be disallowed. 58. We have considered the rival submissions. Once an asset has become

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

57. Ld CIT DR submitted that a building which had a WDV is Rs.9,51,320/- had become un useful should be discarded. It was the submission that the depreciation of said asset, which was not used during the relevant assessment year was liable to be disallowed. 58. We have considered the rival submissions. Once an asset has become

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

57. Ld CIT DR submitted that a building which had a WDV is Rs.9,51,320/- had become un useful should be discarded. It was the submission that the depreciation of said asset, which was not used during the relevant assessment year was liable to be disallowed. 58. We have considered the rival submissions. Once an asset has become

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

57. Ld CIT DR submitted that a building which had a WDV is Rs.9,51,320/- had become un useful should be discarded. It was the submission that the depreciation of said asset, which was not used during the relevant assessment year was liable to be disallowed. 58. We have considered the rival submissions. Once an asset has become

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

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) ..

Depreciation of Rs. 133,19,92,230/- u/s.32(i)(iia) of the Act which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer erroneously and hence sustenance thereof is incorrect, unjustified, arbitrary, erroneous, contrary to facts and bad in law. 11. Treatment of: a. Long term Capital Gains Rs. 63,57,13,500/- h. Short term Capital Gains Rs. 1,89,869/- Totaling

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

PARADEEP PARIVAHAN PVT. LTD.,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.461/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Paradeep Parivahan Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Cuttack 204, Obc Building, Bank Street, Paradeep,Jagatsinghpur-754142 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan No. : Aaccp 0890 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr

Section 145(3) of the Act and framed assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act. The AO applied net profit @7% on the gross receipts of Rs.40,22,57,024/- excluding other income shown by the assessee of Rs.11,85,712/- i.e. Rs.40,10,71,312/-. It was noticed by the AO that the assessee had shown net profit @5.53% before

ACIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. MAZDA CONCRETE PRODUCTS (P) LTD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.118/Ctk/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011) Acit,Circle-2(1), Vs. M/S Mazda Concrete Bhubaneswar Products (P) Ltd., 3Rd Floor, The Grand, Rajbhawan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No. : Aabcm 9883 H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Citdr निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.Satyanarayana Murty, Fca Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/03/2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23/03/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed This Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Ii, Bhubaneswar Dated 12.02.2014. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :- 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Law As Well As Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.3,50,24,517/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Suppression Of Closing Stock. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Law As Well As Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 17,34,99120/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Deemed Dividend U/S.2(22)(E) Of-The Act. 3. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Law-As Well As Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.57,75,425/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Interest Paid U/S.40(A)(Ia) Of The Act. 4. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Law As Well As Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 15,59,634/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Rent Paid U/S.40(A)(Ia) Of The Act.

depreciation. The ld. CIT(A) was satisfied with the explanation on closing stock with supporting evidence and also both return of income filed u/s.139(1) and 139(5) of the Act. We found the CIT(A) observed that the assessee had not disclosed the value of raw materials and stores and spares in the Closing Stock in the original Return

KANDOI AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD.,CUTTACK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 37 of the Act, the AO is under obligation to 6 examine these expenses and if the same were for the purpose of business, the same deserves to be allowed. In the instant case these expenses were allowed after making verification in the order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act and the ld Pr.CIT in revisionary order u/s.263

RAVI METALLICS LIMITED,ROURKELA vs. PR.CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaravi Metallics Limited, I/10, Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan No.Adqps 4031 G ………………Assessee Versus Pr.Cit, Sambalpur ………………..Revenue Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ar For The Assessee Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr For The Revenue Date Of Hearing : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, Passed U/S.263 Of The Act In Case No.Pcit/Sbp/263/26/2018-19, Dated 29.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. Heard On The Question Of Condonation Of Delay 2. On Perusal Of The Record, We Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 686 Days. In This Regard, Ld. Ar Filed An Application Along With Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay, Wherein It Has Been Submitted That The Delay Occurred In Filing The Present Appeal Is Neither Intentional Nor Deliberate But Due To Unfortunate & Unavoidable Circumstances Beyond

depreciation was charged in respect of Shanti Mall, Rourkela since it was not put to use. On the other hand, vide letter dated 11.01.2016, it was alleged that the appellant company had transferred the capital expenditure of Rs.13,57,62,768/- to fixed assets. Interest of Rs.37,95,622/- was also allocated to various fixed assets. As regards the first