TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 1232
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h February, 2022 the following substantial questions of law were framed for consideration: "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned ITAT was legally justified in dismissing the grounds of the appellant and upholding and affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) of the addition/disallowance of Rs.31,18,89,388/- u/s. 43B of the Act in respect of Electricity Duty deposited into designated bank Account as per direction of this Court ? (ii) Whether the components/parts of a plan which were acquired prior to 31st March, 2005 but all such components/parts fitted into the plant after 31.03.2005 and installed after 31.03.2005, the Tribunal was justified in law in not allowing the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntions. Further, NALCO was to deposit the differential of 8 paisa per unit in any Nationalized Bank in a fixed deposit. Accordingly, NALCO paid the differential 8 paisa per unit in a fixed deposit with the State Bank of India (SBI). 6. NALCO states that pursuant to the above interim order of the High Court it deposited a total sum of Rs.1,76,44,35,364/- from 10th October, 2001 to 31st March, 2006. Further, by orders dated 16th August, 2004 in Misc. Case No.5547 of 2002 and Misc. Case No.1232 of 2004 in OJC No.2682 of 2002, this Court directed NALCO to withdraw a sum of Rs.30 crores from the sum lying in Fixed Deposit with SBI and to deposit the said amount in the Treasury of the State Government by 3rd November, 2004. Three further similar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Assessee went before the ITAT in appeal which by the impugned order dated 29th June, 2012 was dismissed. 10. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. A.U. Senapati, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr. T.K. Satapathy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondents. 11. Mr. Satapathy, learned Senior Standing Counsel sought to place reliance on the order dated 4th March, 2022 of this Court in I.T.A. No.20 of 2014 (M/s. Indian Metal and Ferro Alloys Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax) to urge that a similar question in that case as regards deduction under Section 43B of the Act was decided in favour of the Department and against the Assessee. 12. Countering the above submission, Mr. A.U. Senapati, learned counsel for the App....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h, 2015 recoding a settlement between the parties, pursuant to which full payments have in fact been made by NALCO to the State Government. In that view of the matter, question No.(i) is answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Department by holding that the AO, the CIT(A) and the ITAT were not justified in sustaining the addition/disallowance of Rs.31,18,89,388/- under Section 43B of the Act in respect of electricity duty deposited in the SBI Bank account under the direction of this Court. 15. On this issue, the matter is remanded to the AO for a fresh computation keeping in view the amounts already released by the Petitioner to the State Government. Question (ii) 16. As regards, the second issue concerning additional deprecia....