First, I think there's a typo. It should be:

> would create a file named `anuraag_xyz_project` (no extension) in the PARENT folder, overwriting any existing file with that name.

But that's how Linux works. It's because mv is both for moving and renaming. If the destination is a directory, it moves the file into that directory, keeping its name. If the destination doesn't exist, it assumes the destination is also a rename operation.

And yes, it's atrocious design by today's standards. Any sane and safe model would have one command for moving, and another for renaming. Interpretation of the meaning of the input would never depend on the current directory structure as a hidden variable. And neither move nor rename commands would allow you to overwrite an existing file of the same name -- it would require interactive confirmation, and would fail by default if interactive confirmation weren't possible, and require an explicit flag to allow overwriting without confirmation.

But I guess people don't seem to care? I've never come across an "mv command considered harmful" essay. Maybe it's time for somebody to write one...