Claim of deletion of Addition in Respect of Providing for Dam Maintenance by Orissa Hydro Power: Orissa HC declines to Frame issues [Read Order]

Claim of deletion of addition - Providing for Dam maintenance - Orissa Hydro Power - Orissa HC - Taxscan

The High Court of Orissa refused to frame issues on the deletion of a claim by the assessee in respect of providing for Dam maintenance by Orissa Hydro Power since it was decided against the revenue.

M/s. Orissa Hydro Power Corporation Ltd., the petitioner filed an appeal challenging the common order dated 22nd June 2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cuttack Bench for the Assessment Years (AYs) 2007-08, 2009-10 and 2014-15 respectively.

The first question before the court was whether the ITAT was justified in deletion of the addition of Rs.8,17,80,866/- claimed in respect of provision for dam maintenance for five dams being RHEP, Rangali, BHEP, Balimela, UKHPE,  Barinut, HPS, Burla and UIHEP, Mukhiguda.

Further, questioned whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the assessee has followed the mercantile system for calculating guarantee commission payable to the State Govt. is an admissible expenditure.

Further questioned that the ITAT was justified in law as well as on facts in allowing the depreciation claimed on miscellaneous assets @ 15% on such assets.

Because of the decision of the Court dated 31st January 2023 passed in ITA No.9 of 2021 (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Bhubaneswar v.  Orissa Hydro Power Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar), the Court declines to frame the first question for consideration since it stands answered against the Revenue by the above-said order.

On the second question, it is seen that the ITAT has concurred with the view of the CIT (A) which in turn has relied on the decisions for the earlier AY 2005-06 concerning the same Assessee.

Mr Tushar Kanti Satapathy Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue is unable to point out if the said orders for AY 2005-06 have been appealed against by the Revenue. Moreover, these are the concurrent views of the CIT (A) and the ITAT which turned on facts. In that view of the matter, following the rule of consistency, the Court declined to frame the questions as urged.

Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates

taxscan-loader