Ita/9/2021 Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. Orissa Hydro Power Corporation Ltd
High Court
31 Jan 2023 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · cisnc
Parties
Ita/9/2021 Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. Orissa Hydro Power Corporation Ltd
Date of order
31 Jan 2023
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Ita/9/2021 Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. Orissa Hydro Power Corporation Ltd, the High Court (2023) decided the matter.
Decision: The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
Order No.
02.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ITA No.09 of 2021
…. Appellant
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Bhubaneswar
Mr. Tushar Kanti Satapathy, Senior Standing Counsel -versus-
….Respondent
Orissa Hydro Power Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN
ORDER
31.01.2023
I. A. No.20 of 2021
1. For the reasons stated in the application, filing of certified copies of orders under Annexures-2 and 3 are dispensed with. The application is allowed.
ITA No. 9 of 2021
2. The Revenue has filed this appeal against an order dated 25[th]February, 2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (ITAT) in ITA No.115/CTK/2014 as well as ITA No.122/CTK/2014—one appeal being filed by Revenue Department (ITA No.115/CTK/2014) and the other being filed by the Assessee (ITA No.122/CTK/2014).
3. The question sought to urge for consideration by this Court in the present appeal is whether the ITAT was right in holding that with the Assessee having followed the mercantile system of accounting, the provision for liability under the head ‘dam maintenance’ is an admissible expenditure?
M. Panda
4. The ITAT-Tribunal has answered the above issue in favour of the
Assessee. In doing so, a reference was made to an earlier order dated 20[th] September, 2017of the Tribunal itself on the same issue in the case of OMC Ltd (ITA No.177/CTK/2013). Reference was also made to the correspondence with the Government which showed that the demands were being made in respect of the dam maintenance charges as ‘early payment.’
5. Adopting the rule of consistency, the CIT (A) in its order dated 1[st] January, 2014 and the Tribunal in the impugned order have held in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue.
6. In that view of the matter, the Court is not inclined to frame the question as urged by the Revenue in the present case. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.