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

2. Disallowance of the claim of additional 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

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

2. Disallowance of the claim of additional 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

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

2. Disallowance of the claim of additional 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

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

2. Disallowance of the claim of additional 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

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

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

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.181/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Vs. M/S Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd At/Po: Jagruti Vihar, Burla, Dist-Sambalpur-768020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcm 5188 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.M.Keshkamat, Cit Dr ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Poddar, Fca

80G of the IT Act. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in accepting the plea of the assessee that such 'Grants to Schools" to the tune of Rs.21.85 crores was an employee welfare expense, without ascertaining from the assessee whether corresponding amount has been taxed as "perquisites

DCIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. ORISSA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

Section 80IA of the Act, has considered the submissions of the assessee and relied on the assesee’s own case, referred at page 6 of the order and the coordinate bench decision of Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No.93/CTK/2007 for the assessment year 2003-04, which referred at para 4.2.1 and confirmed the action

M/S. ODISHA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

Section 80IA of the Act, has considered the submissions of the assessee and relied on the assesee’s own case, referred at page 6 of the order and the coordinate bench decision of Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No.93/CTK/2007 for the assessment year 2003-04, which referred at para 4.2.1 and confirmed the action

LAXMINARAYAN TRANSPORT,JAJPUR ROAD, JAJPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1) CUTTACK, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialassessment Year : 2015-16

section 80G but claiming under the head “business expenses”. It is well known fact that a prudent business man has to incur such miscellaneous expenses in the course of his business for the purpose of furtherance of his business activities. Considering the present case as also the necessity, which has been explained by the assessee, the disallowance made

DCIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. DISCOVERTURE SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD., BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2011-12

disallowed deduction of Rs.3,67,15,136.19 claimed by the assessee u/s.10A and also did not allow deduction u/s.10B of the Act to the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). 5. The CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of exemption of Rs.3