2025 (11) TMI 1580

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....2024 for AYs 2017-18, 2020-21, 2022-23 and 2017-18 & 2018-19 respectively. The Revenue has also filed appeal against the order of ld. CIT (A) dated 07.08.2024 for AY 2017-18. ASSESSEE'S APPEAL [ITA No.152/DDN/2024 (AY 2017-18)] REVENUE'S APPEAL [ITA No.169/DDN/2024 (AY 2017-18)] 2. At the outset, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that for AY 2017-18 against order passed u/s 143 r.w.s. 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), the assessee and Revenue has filed cross appeals. He submitted that the case of the assessee is that since the order u/s 263 of the Act has been quashed by the ITAT, the impugned assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act in pursuance to order passed u/s 263 do not survive and accord....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....DDN/2024 is allowed. ASSESSEE'S APPEAL [ITA No.177/DDN/2024 (AY 2018-19)] 8. At the outset, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the only issue involved is computing and taxing the Distribution Dividend Tax (DDT) of Rs. 5,55,37,796 on alleged dividend distributed of Rs. 27,80,10,484/- as against the actual distributed dividend of Rs. 22,66,66,225/- on which DDT of Rs. 4,61,44,259/- was paid by the assessee. In this regard, he submitted that the assessee has inadvertently reported the figure of Rs. 27,80,10,484/- (Rs. 27,80,10,484/- + Rs. 4,61,44,259/-) as dividend distributed in its return of income. However, fact remains that assessee has declared dividend of Rs. 22,66,66,225/- on which due DDT of Rs. 4,61,44,259/- was paid. He subm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....essee being ITA No.177/DDN/2024 is allowed. ASSESSEE'S APPEAL [ITA No.153/DDN/2024 (AY 2018-19)] 12. At the outset, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the first issue involved is disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 1,64,44,637/- on the assets acquired from UPJVNL. In this regard, he submitted that the said issue of depreciation on the assets acquired from UPJVNL has already been decided in favour of the assessee by the ITAT in assessee's own cases in earlier AYs i.e. 2003-4, 2004-05, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014- 15. He further submitted that since the said issue has been decided in favour of the assessee in earlier years, the same may be allowed for the year under consideration. 13. Ld. DR of th....