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.

31 results for “depreciation”+ Section 92clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,595Delhi1,320Bangalore557Ahmedabad355Chennai349Kolkata248Chandigarh154Jaipur145Hyderabad140Pune138Visakhapatnam59Cochin58Indore56Raipur41Guwahati38Lucknow32Cuttack31Surat30Amritsar28Rajkot27Karnataka24Nagpur23Ranchi18SC17Telangana17Allahabad11Agra9Kerala8Jodhpur8Varanasi4Patna3Panaji3Jabalpur3Calcutta1Gauhati1Orissa1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1Dehradun1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Addition to Income27Section 143(3)16Disallowance14Section 14A13Section 26312Depreciation11Section 143(1)6Section 143(2)6Deduction6Section 115J

MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD.,SAMBALPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), SAMBALPUR

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

ITA 174/CTK/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.174/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015 - 2016) Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcm 5188 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Podar, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.M.Keshkamat, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am :

For Appellant: Shri S.S.Podar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.M.Keshkamat, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 35ESection 37Section 37(1)

depreciation of Rs.274.91 crores as inadmissible and added to the total income. 5. Further, with regard to valuation of closing stock, the AO show- caused the assessee as to why the cost of OBR should not be included in the closing stock as the cost of OBR is part of the cost of production of coal. In response to this

Showing 1–20 of 31 · Page 1 of 2

5
Section 80G5
Section 805

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 115JSection 123Section 14ASection 2Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

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

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)

depreciation by reducing the value of block of assets by sale value. This ground of appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2011-12 is allowed for statistical purposes. 32 Mah anadi Coalf ield Ltyd., 74. Ground No3(5) of appeal is against addition u/s.14A for assessment year 2014-15 is not pressed due to smallness of amount and hence, same

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

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

AMBIKA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,BARIPADA vs. DCIT, BALASORE

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

ITA 191/CTK/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.191/Ctk/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011 - 2012) Ambika Construction Company, Vs. Dcit, Balasore Circle, C/O Mangal Kumar Bhaumik, Balasore Ward No.11, Station Bazar, Baripada-757001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaffa 2848 B (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/03/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of Cit(A), Cuttack, Dated 27.02.2015 For The Assessment Year 2011-2012. 2. On Perusal Of The Appeal Record, We Find That Initially The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Disposed Off By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 29.05.2017. Thereafter The Assessee Carried The Matter To The Hon’Ble Jurisdictional High Court & The Hon’Ble High Court Quashed The Order Of The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 24.04.2019 & Remitted The Matter Back For Consideration Of The Case Of The Assessee In The Light Of The Decision As Has Been Held By The Hon’Ble High Court In Income Tax (Appeal) No.36 Of 2015, Vide Order Dated 20.08.2018 In The Case Of 2 Mohd. Asif Habibi Vs. Pr. Cit & Others. Thereafter As Per The Direction

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

92,120/-, which was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the return of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS and statutory notices u/s.143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee. During the 3 course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnish the cash book and stock register, however, the assessee could

ORISSA COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT ,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 375/CTK/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack19 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year : 2015-2016

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Lenka, DR
Section 11

section 11 of the income tax Act.” 3. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the record of the case. Ld counsel for the assessee submitted that the AO was not correct in holding that the P a g e 1 | 5 ITA No.3 75/CTK/201 9 Assessm ent Y ear : 20 15- 201 6 assessee trust is not eligible

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 62/CTK/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack30 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, CA and Shri P. Venugopal Rao, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Abani Kanta Nayak
Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234BSection 263Section 43B

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

MAA JAGAT JANANI SEVA TRUST,NAMBIRA vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION CIRCLE), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 249/CTK/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2014-2015 2015 Maa Maa Jagat Jagat Janani Janani Seva Seva Vs. Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Trust, At- -Nambira, Po: Income Income Tax, Tax, Exemption Exemption Bamebari, Ps: Joda, Dist: Bamebari, Ps: Joda, Dist: Circle, Bhubaneswar Circle, Bhubaneswar Keonjhar Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aadtm 1575 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, P.K.Mishra, Adv Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/0 07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/0 /07/2024 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Ord This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Ord This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 7.6.2023 In Appeal No.Nfac/2013 Nfac/2013-14/10180318 For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Shri P.K.Mishra, P.K.Mishra, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri The Assessee & Shri Sanjay Kumar, Ld Cit Kumar, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri P.K.MishraFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194JSection 68

depreciation claimed appears to be doubtful. Nature of payment to M/s. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd., a donor of Rs.15,79,000/- appears to be not for the purpose of charity. Further, most of the expenses are found to be incurred in cash and no document is provided by the assessee with regard to payment to poor. The genuineness is doubtful

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

depreciation in respect of heavy earth moving machinery used by the assessee in its business on construction of roads, the third issue being the disallowance at 100% as against 30% of the amount disallowed by applying the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and the fourth being the issue against the non-granting of benefit of credit

SISKHA 'O' ANUSANDHAN,BHUBANESWAR vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 91/CTK/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack13 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.91/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Siksha ‘O’ Anusandhan Vs Cit(Exemption), Hyderabad Plot No.224, Dharma Vihar, Khandagiri, Bhubaneswar Pan No. :Aabts 1525 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri K.K.Bal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 234CSection 263

92,09,850/- in ITBA. As there was a mistake apparent from the record, the case of the assessee thereafter rectified u/s.154 of the Act and refund of Rs.1,18,20,240/ was made on 04.06.2020. 3. Subsequently, the ld. Pr.CIT invoking his powers conferred u/s.263 of the Act, on verification of the assessment record, observed that the assessment order

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 375/CTK/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri P. Venugopal RaoFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80G

section 80G of Rs.7,52,58,750/- arbitrarily is unjust and bad in law. 5. For that the appellant has submitted all relevant documents at the time of several hearings before the Ld. CIT (A) which he has not considered which is unjust and therefore bad in law. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add or to amend

ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DICT, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 381/CTK/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri P. Venugopal RaoFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80G

section 80G of Rs.7,52,58,750/- arbitrarily is unjust and bad in law. 5. For that the appellant has submitted all relevant documents at the time of several hearings before the Ld. CIT (A) which he has not considered which is unjust and therefore bad in law. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add or to amend

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 333/CTK/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri P. Venugopal RaoFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80G

section 80G of Rs.7,52,58,750/- arbitrarily is unjust and bad in law. 5. For that the appellant has submitted all relevant documents at the time of several hearings before the Ld. CIT (A) which he has not considered which is unjust and therefore bad in law. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add or to amend

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 93/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri P. Venugopal RaoFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80G

section 80G of Rs.7,52,58,750/- arbitrarily is unjust and bad in law. 5. For that the appellant has submitted all relevant documents at the time of several hearings before the Ld. CIT (A) which he has not considered which is unjust and therefore bad in law. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add or to amend

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 92/CTK/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri P. Venugopal RaoFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80G

section 80G of Rs.7,52,58,750/- arbitrarily is unjust and bad in law. 5. For that the appellant has submitted all relevant documents at the time of several hearings before the Ld. CIT (A) which he has not considered which is unjust and therefore bad in law. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add or to amend

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK vs. JITENDRA NATH PATNAIK, KEONJHAR

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

ITA 13/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Jul 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year :2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S.C.Bhadra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 14A

section 14A could have no application. Further, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shivam Motors (P) Ltd., (2014) 89 CCH 0059 (All), wherein, it was held that in absence of any tax free income, corresponding expenditure could not be worked out for disallowance u/s.14A. 8. After considering the rival

ACIT, ROURKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA vs. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

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

ITA 373/CTK/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Manish Borad & Manish Borad & Manish Boradassessment Year : 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No. No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessment Year : 2015-16 C.O. No.01/Ctk/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Bhadra S.C. Bhadra , Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20 /10/ 20 / 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10 / 12 12/2021 O R D E R Per Bench The Cross The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Assessee Are Directed Against The Or Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 Der Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 For The P A G E 1 | 62

For Appellant: Shri S.C. BhadraFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam
Section 143(3)

depreciation claimed by the assessee. Accordingly, ground No.2 of the revenue is dismissed. 34. Ground No:3 & 4 – Disallowance of Peripheral Development Expenses of Rs.9,44,35,647/- 3.1 The ld CIT(A) was not justified to delete the disallowance of Rs.9,44,35,647/- made by the AO towards “peripheral Development expenditure” totally ignoring the findings

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

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

ITA 366/CTK/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Manish Borad & Manish Borad & Manish Boradassessment Year : 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No. No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessment Year : 2015-16 C.O. No.01/Ctk/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Bhadra S.C. Bhadra , Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20 /10/ 20 / 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10 / 12 12/2021 O R D E R Per Bench The Cross The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Assessee Are Directed Against The Or Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 Der Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 For The P A G E 1 | 62

For Appellant: Shri S.C. BhadraFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam
Section 143(3)

depreciation claimed by the assessee. Accordingly, ground No.2 of the revenue is dismissed. 34. Ground No:3 & 4 – Disallowance of Peripheral Development Expenses of Rs.9,44,35,647/- 3.1 The ld CIT(A) was not justified to delete the disallowance of Rs.9,44,35,647/- made by the AO towards “peripheral Development expenditure” totally ignoring the findings

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

depreciation. ITA No.179/CTK/2014: AY: 2007-08 ITA No.180/ctk/2014: AY. 2008-09 ITA No.282/CTK/2016 :AY: 2010-11 ITA No.283/CTK/2016: AY: 2011-12 ITA No.13/CTK/2017: AY: 2012-13 ITA No.277/ctk/2019: ay: 2013-14 ITA No.278/CTK/2019: AY: 2014-15 60. The ground provision for leave encashment is taken in assessment years

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

depreciation. ITA No.179/CTK/2014: AY: 2007-08 ITA No.180/ctk/2014: AY. 2008-09 ITA No.282/CTK/2016 :AY: 2010-11 ITA No.283/CTK/2016: AY: 2011-12 ITA No.13/CTK/2017: AY: 2012-13 ITA No.277/ctk/2019: ay: 2013-14 ITA No.278/CTK/2019: AY: 2014-15 60. The ground provision for leave encashment is taken in assessment years