← All Phrases

“Section 43(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 43Section 43(1)441 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 43(1) is CIT v. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd. (312 ITR 254), cited in 968 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 43(1)

CIT v. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd.
312 ITR 254 · 2009 · Supreme Court
968
citing judgments

Foreign exchange fluctuations, whether gains or losses, are inextricably linked to the underlying business transaction and must be accounted for under the mercantile system. The Supreme Court also affirmed the standard accounting principle of valuing stock at cost or net realisable value, whichever is lower.

CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd.
306 ITR 392 · 2008 · Supreme Court
577
citing judgments

The "Purpose Test" determines whether an incentive or subsidy is a capital or revenue receipt for income tax purposes. If the incentive's purpose is to enable an assessee to set up a new industry or make investments in capital assets, it is a capital receipt and not taxable.

CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd.
348 ITR 302 · 2012 · Supreme Court
540
citing judgments

Goodwill, whether arising from an amalgamation or a slump sale, is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act. While the assessee must prove the existence and valuation of such goodwill, it is recognized as a depreciable asset.

Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT
228 ITR 253 · 1997 · Supreme Court
429
citing judgments

A subsidy is treated as a revenue receipt if the assessee is free to use the money in its business as it likes and is not obligated to spend it for a specific capital purpose, such as acquiring assets or repaying loans.

Escorts Ltd. v. UOI
199 ITR 43 · 1993 · Supreme Court
267
citing judgments

A statute should not be construed to permit double deduction for the same expenditure unless specifically provided by law.

M/s Mahadev Cold Storage v. Jurisdictional AO
43 Taxmann.com 33 · 2014 · High Court
262
citing judgments

Employees' contributions to welfare funds are an allowable deduction if paid before the due date for filing the income-tax return under section 139(1), even if the payment is made beyond the due date specified by the respective welfare fund Acts, as per the provisions of section 43B.

Brooke Bond India Ltd. v. CIT
225 ITR 798 · 1997 · Supreme Court
228
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred for increasing a company's share capital or expanding its capital base, such as expenses related to the issue of shares, constitutes capital expenditure. Such expenses are not deductible as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, even if they incidentally benefit the business.

Calcutta in CIT v. Vijay Shree Ltd.
43 Taxmann.com 396 · 2014 · High Court
214
citing judgments

Employees' contribution to provident fund and ESI, if paid by the assessee before the due date for filing the return of income under section 139(1), is an allowable deduction under section 43B. No distinction is drawn between employer's and employee's contributions for the purpose of section 43B.

Judgments citing Section 43(1)

DCIT Central Circle-29, New Delhi vs. Avichal Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1431/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 142Section 153ASection 43(1)

excise duty exemption accounted as deferred government grants in the books of M/s Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., in terms of explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act, the actual cost of such assets to the resulting company i.e. the Exemption. On the aforesaid premises, the Assessing Officer disallowed assessee ... Assessment Years, followed the same and decided the appeals. 6. Before us, learned Departmental Representative submitted that in terms of explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act, the actual cost of such assets has to be determined after reducing the cost mat by the Central Government through Central

DCIT Central Circle-29, New Delhi vs. Avichal Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1430/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 142Section 153ASection 43(1)

excise duty exemption accounted as deferred government grants in the books of M/s Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., in terms of explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act, the actual cost of such assets to the resulting company i.e. the Exemption. On the aforesaid premises, the Assessing Officer disallowed assessee ... Assessment Years, followed the same and decided the appeals. 6. Before us, learned Departmental Representative submitted that in terms of explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act, the actual cost of such assets has to be determined after reducing the cost mat by the Central Government through Central

D.C.I.T., Circle-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1964/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........…..........................…..…..... Respondent Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] C.O. 39/Kol/2019 (A/O I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] Vs Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal By The Revenue & The Corresponding Cross Objections By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 30.05.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). First, We Take Up Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.1964/Kol/2019. I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 & C.O. 39/Kol/2019 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 80I

construed as a Capital Receipt and the same need not be reduced from the cost of assets in terms of Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed and grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 30. Respectfully following ... dismissed. We also hold that capital receipt need not be reduced from the cost of the assets and under Explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act. I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 & C.O. 39/Kol/2019 M/s Birla Corporation Ltd We accordingly allow ground no.7 raised by the assessee in its appeal.” 13.5. Since

DCIT-1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 3913/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2024AY 2014-15
For Respondent: Date
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 154Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "E" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA

Hindustan Petroleum Corp Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 3195/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: us. 2.

For Appellant: Shri P.J. PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 154Section 250

that are manufactured, or otherwise produced, in large quantities on a repetitive basis” d) The Assessing Officer has also failed to appreciate that Section 43(1) of the Act defines „Actual Cost‟ is in the context of fixed assets and therefore, reliance upon Section 43(1) of the Act read ... trade. Accordingly, we are in agreement with the CIT(A) that the reliance placed by the Assessing Officer on Explanation 8 to Section 43(1) of the Act is clearly misplaced. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed

M/S. Deepak Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 6(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 467/KOL/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234CSection 36(1)(va)Section 43(1)Section 43A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘C’, KOLKATA [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial

M/S. Deepak Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-6(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 466/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234CSection 36(1)(va)Section 43(1)Section 43A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘C’, KOLKATA [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial

Asst CIT (Ltu) 1, Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Limited (As A Successor to Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1248/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Ms. A. Alankrutha, Sr. DR
Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

plant hence the same cannot be treated as "cost directly or indirectly met by any other person" within the meaning of explanation to Section 43(1). The appellant has heavily relied on the ITAT in the case of Godrej Agrovet Ltd. and other decisions. The ruling of Supreme Court ... subsidy has been granted only because of capital expenditure incurred by the appellant for expansion. The definition of the "Actual Cost" as per section 43(1) specifically provides that Actual cost means the actual cost of the assets to the assessee as reduced by that portion of the cost thereof

Grasim Industries Limited (As A Successor to Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1065/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Ms. A. Alankrutha, Sr. DR
Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

plant hence the same cannot be treated as "cost directly or indirectly met by any other person" within the meaning of explanation to Section 43(1). The appellant has heavily relied on the ITAT in the case of Godrej Agrovet Ltd. and other decisions. The ruling of Supreme Court ... subsidy has been granted only because of capital expenditure incurred by the appellant for expansion. The definition of the "Actual Cost" as per section 43(1) specifically provides that Actual cost means the actual cost of the assets to the assessee as reduced by that portion of the cost thereof

DCIT Circle-24(2), New Delhi vs. Sunbeam Auto Pvt Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 673/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada.Yr. : 2012-13 Sunbeam Lightweighting Vs. Dcit, Circle 24(2), Solutions Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi – 110002 (Formerly: Sunbeam Auto Pvt. Ltd), 38/6, K.M. Stone, Delhi-Jaipur Highway, Narsingpur, Gurgaon-122001 (Pan: Aafcn8583K) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ay 2012-13 Dcit, Circle 24(2), Sunbeam Auto Pvt. Ltd, Room No. 328, Cr Building, Vs. S-323, Panchsheel Park, Ip Estate, New Delhi – 110 017 New Delhi – 2 (Pan: Aaabcs2948F) (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Ms. Sashi Kapila, Adv., Sh. Sushil Kumar, Adv. & Sh. Parvesh Kumar, Adv. Department By : Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 20.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.12.2023 Order Per Shamim Yahya, Am : The Assessee As Well As Revenue Has Filed The Cross Appeals Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-8, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13 On The Following Grounds:-

For Appellant: Ms. Sashi Kapila, Adv., Sh. SushilFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 264Section 40Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

holding that the capital subsidy received from the Government of Haryana should be deducted from the cost of assets under Explanation – 10 to section 43(1) of the Act. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance ... relates to deduction of capital subsidy received by the assessee from Haryana Govt. from the cost of assets under Explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act. On query raised by the Ld. AO, the assessee explained that even though the amount of subsidy is linked to the fixed

Sunbeam Lightweighting Solutions Pvt Ltd (Formely Sunbeam Auto Pvt Ltd), Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle-24(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 115/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada.Yr. : 2012-13 Sunbeam Lightweighting Vs. Dcit, Circle 24(2), Solutions Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi – 110002 (Formerly: Sunbeam Auto Pvt. Ltd), 38/6, K.M. Stone, Delhi-Jaipur Highway, Narsingpur, Gurgaon-122001 (Pan: Aafcn8583K) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ay 2012-13 Dcit, Circle 24(2), Sunbeam Auto Pvt. Ltd, Room No. 328, Cr Building, Vs. S-323, Panchsheel Park, Ip Estate, New Delhi – 110 017 New Delhi – 2 (Pan: Aaabcs2948F) (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Ms. Sashi Kapila, Adv., Sh. Sushil Kumar, Adv. & Sh. Parvesh Kumar, Adv. Department By : Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 20.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.12.2023 Order Per Shamim Yahya, Am : The Assessee As Well As Revenue Has Filed The Cross Appeals Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-8, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13 On The Following Grounds:-

For Appellant: Ms. Sashi Kapila, Adv., Sh. SushilFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 264Section 40Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

holding that the capital subsidy received from the Government of Haryana should be deducted from the cost of assets under Explanation – 10 to section 43(1) of the Act. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance ... relates to deduction of capital subsidy received by the assessee from Haryana Govt. from the cost of assets under Explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act. On query raised by the Ld. AO, the assessee explained that even though the amount of subsidy is linked to the fixed

The DCIT, (Central)-1, Bhopal vs. M/S. Ayushman Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal

Accordingly. This ground is allowed in these terms

ITA 610/IND/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Ayushman Medical Income-Tax, Diagnostic Private (Central)-I, Limited, Bhopal E-5, 3Rd Floor, बनाम/ Tawa Complex, Vs. Bittan Market, Bhopal (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Aabca 2560 P Assessee By Shri Anil Khabya, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.12.2023

Section 143(3)

event it is found that it was a ‘capital subsidy’, it may further necessitate adjustment in cost of assets as per provisions of section 43(1) of the act. This aspect is also be checked by Page 11 of 12 M/s. Ayushman Medical Diagnostic Private Limited Assessment year

Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2241/AHD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2241/Ahd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Vodafone India Services बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle- Pvt. Ltd. 4(1)(2) Vs. Indiabulls Finance Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Room 1201, 12Th Floor, Tower-1, No.209, Pratyaksh Kar Senapati Bapat Road, Bhavan, Near Elphinstone (West), Polytechnic, Ambawadi, Mumbai-400013. Ahmedabad-380015. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz1849D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Fereshte Sethna (Adv) Revenue By: Letter Dated 11.10.2023 सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad Dated 31.08.2018, Arising Out Of The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3)/144C(13) Dated 05.12.2014 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. In The Several Grounds Raised In The Appeal, The Sole Grievance Of The Appellant Is Against The Action Of The Ao/Ld. Cit(A) In Not Allowing The Depreciation Claimed On Goodwill.

For Appellant: Ms. Fereshte Sethna (Adv)For Respondent: Letter dated 11.10.2023
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(15)(b)Section 92C

accordance with various other provisions of the Act, which include Section 43(6)(C), Explanation 2 of Section 43(6)(c), Section 43(1), etc. When these provisions are applied, in some situations (like that of business reorganization) there could be no depreciation on account of the actual cost being ... fact that it was paid to related party, constituted the cost of acquisition in the hands of the appellant, in terms of Section 43(1) of the Act. The aforesaid material information, according to us, is sufficient to entertain the claim for depreciation on the goodwill acquired by the appellant

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur vs. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd., Raipur

In the result ground 2 of the CO

ITA 188/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.181/Rpr/2023 (Ay-2010-2011) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 182/Rpr/2023 (Ay:2011-2012) आयकरअपीलसं. /Ita No. 183/Rpr/2023(Ay: 2012-2013) आयकरअपीलसं. /Ita No. 184/Rpr/2023(Ay: 2013-2014) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 185/Rpr/2023(Ay: 2014-2015) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 186/Rpr/2023(Ay: 2015-2016) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 187/Rpr/2023(Ay: 2017-2018) आयकरअपीलसं. /Ita No. 188/Rpr/2023(Ay: 2018-2019) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Circle-1(1), Raipur S Company Limited, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Vidhyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur Pan: Aadcc6047K & Cross Objection No. 10/Rpr/2023 (2011-12) Cross Objection No. 11/Rpr/2023 (2012-13) Cross Objection No. 12/Rpr/2023 (2014-15) Cross Objection No. 13/Rpr/2023 (2015-16) Cross Objection No. 14/Rpr/2023 (2018-19) Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution V Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Raipur S Vidhyut Seva Bhawan, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Daganiya, Raipur Pan: Aadcc6047K (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Praveen Khandelwal & Praveen Goyal, Ca'S राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By : Shri Debashish Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2023 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2023

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Khandelwal & PraveenFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)

actual cost of the assets for the purpose of claiming depreciation u/s 32 of the Act in terms of Explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer relying on the decision of Hon’ble Hyderabad Tribunal in the case of AP State Electricity Board (supra) held

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur vs. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd., Raipur

In the result ground 2 of the CO

ITA 187/RPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.181/Rpr/2023 (Ay-2010-2011) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 182/Rpr/2023 (Ay:2011-2012) आयकरअपीलसं. /Ita No. 183/Rpr/2023(Ay: 2012-2013) आयकरअपीलसं. /Ita No. 184/Rpr/2023(Ay: 2013-2014) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 185/Rpr/2023(Ay: 2014-2015) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 186/Rpr/2023(Ay: 2015-2016) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 187/Rpr/2023(Ay: 2017-2018) आयकरअपीलसं. /Ita No. 188/Rpr/2023(Ay: 2018-2019) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Circle-1(1), Raipur S Company Limited, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Vidhyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur Pan: Aadcc6047K & Cross Objection No. 10/Rpr/2023 (2011-12) Cross Objection No. 11/Rpr/2023 (2012-13) Cross Objection No. 12/Rpr/2023 (2014-15) Cross Objection No. 13/Rpr/2023 (2015-16) Cross Objection No. 14/Rpr/2023 (2018-19) Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution V Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Raipur S Vidhyut Seva Bhawan, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Daganiya, Raipur Pan: Aadcc6047K (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Praveen Khandelwal & Praveen Goyal, Ca'S राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By : Shri Debashish Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2023 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2023

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Khandelwal & PraveenFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)

actual cost of the assets for the purpose of claiming depreciation u/s 32 of the Act in terms of Explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer relying on the decision of Hon’ble Hyderabad Tribunal in the case of AP State Electricity Board (supra) held

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur vs. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd., Raipur

In the result ground 2 of the CO

ITA 186/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.181/Rpr/2023 (Ay-2010-2011) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 182/Rpr/2023 (Ay:2011-2012) आयकरअपीलसं. /Ita No. 183/Rpr/2023(Ay: 2012-2013) आयकरअपीलसं. /Ita No. 184/Rpr/2023(Ay: 2013-2014) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 185/Rpr/2023(Ay: 2014-2015) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 186/Rpr/2023(Ay: 2015-2016) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 187/Rpr/2023(Ay: 2017-2018) आयकरअपीलसं. /Ita No. 188/Rpr/2023(Ay: 2018-2019) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Circle-1(1), Raipur S Company Limited, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Vidhyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur Pan: Aadcc6047K & Cross Objection No. 10/Rpr/2023 (2011-12) Cross Objection No. 11/Rpr/2023 (2012-13) Cross Objection No. 12/Rpr/2023 (2014-15) Cross Objection No. 13/Rpr/2023 (2015-16) Cross Objection No. 14/Rpr/2023 (2018-19) Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution V Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Raipur S Vidhyut Seva Bhawan, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Daganiya, Raipur Pan: Aadcc6047K (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Praveen Khandelwal & Praveen Goyal, Ca'S राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By : Shri Debashish Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2023 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2023

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Khandelwal & PraveenFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)

actual cost of the assets for the purpose of claiming depreciation u/s 32 of the Act in terms of Explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer relying on the decision of Hon’ble Hyderabad Tribunal in the case of AP State Electricity Board (supra) held

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur vs. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd., Raipur

In the result ground 2 of the CO

ITA 185/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.181/Rpr/2023 (Ay-2010-2011) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 182/Rpr/2023 (Ay:2011-2012) आयकरअपीलसं. /Ita No. 183/Rpr/2023(Ay: 2012-2013) आयकरअपीलसं. /Ita No. 184/Rpr/2023(Ay: 2013-2014) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 185/Rpr/2023(Ay: 2014-2015) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 186/Rpr/2023(Ay: 2015-2016) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 187/Rpr/2023(Ay: 2017-2018) आयकरअपीलसं. /Ita No. 188/Rpr/2023(Ay: 2018-2019) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Circle-1(1), Raipur S Company Limited, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Vidhyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur Pan: Aadcc6047K & Cross Objection No. 10/Rpr/2023 (2011-12) Cross Objection No. 11/Rpr/2023 (2012-13) Cross Objection No. 12/Rpr/2023 (2014-15) Cross Objection No. 13/Rpr/2023 (2015-16) Cross Objection No. 14/Rpr/2023 (2018-19) Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution V Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Raipur S Vidhyut Seva Bhawan, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Daganiya, Raipur Pan: Aadcc6047K (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Praveen Khandelwal & Praveen Goyal, Ca'S राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By : Shri Debashish Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2023 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2023

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Khandelwal & PraveenFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)

actual cost of the assets for the purpose of claiming depreciation u/s 32 of the Act in terms of Explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer relying on the decision of Hon’ble Hyderabad Tribunal in the case of AP State Electricity Board (supra) held

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur vs. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd., Raipur

In the result ground 2 of the CO

ITA 184/RPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.181/Rpr/2023 (Ay-2010-2011) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 182/Rpr/2023 (Ay:2011-2012) आयकरअपीलसं. /Ita No. 183/Rpr/2023(Ay: 2012-2013) आयकरअपीलसं. /Ita No. 184/Rpr/2023(Ay: 2013-2014) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 185/Rpr/2023(Ay: 2014-2015) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 186/Rpr/2023(Ay: 2015-2016) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 187/Rpr/2023(Ay: 2017-2018) आयकरअपीलसं. /Ita No. 188/Rpr/2023(Ay: 2018-2019) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Circle-1(1), Raipur S Company Limited, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Vidhyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur Pan: Aadcc6047K & Cross Objection No. 10/Rpr/2023 (2011-12) Cross Objection No. 11/Rpr/2023 (2012-13) Cross Objection No. 12/Rpr/2023 (2014-15) Cross Objection No. 13/Rpr/2023 (2015-16) Cross Objection No. 14/Rpr/2023 (2018-19) Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution V Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Raipur S Vidhyut Seva Bhawan, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Daganiya, Raipur Pan: Aadcc6047K (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Praveen Khandelwal & Praveen Goyal, Ca'S राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By : Shri Debashish Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2023 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2023

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Khandelwal & PraveenFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)

actual cost of the assets for the purpose of claiming depreciation u/s 32 of the Act in terms of Explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer relying on the decision of Hon’ble Hyderabad Tribunal in the case of AP State Electricity Board (supra) held

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur vs. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd., Raipur

In the result ground 2 of the CO

ITA 183/RPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.181/Rpr/2023 (Ay-2010-2011) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 182/Rpr/2023 (Ay:2011-2012) आयकरअपीलसं. /Ita No. 183/Rpr/2023(Ay: 2012-2013) आयकरअपीलसं. /Ita No. 184/Rpr/2023(Ay: 2013-2014) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 185/Rpr/2023(Ay: 2014-2015) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 186/Rpr/2023(Ay: 2015-2016) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 187/Rpr/2023(Ay: 2017-2018) आयकरअपीलसं. /Ita No. 188/Rpr/2023(Ay: 2018-2019) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Circle-1(1), Raipur S Company Limited, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Vidhyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur Pan: Aadcc6047K & Cross Objection No. 10/Rpr/2023 (2011-12) Cross Objection No. 11/Rpr/2023 (2012-13) Cross Objection No. 12/Rpr/2023 (2014-15) Cross Objection No. 13/Rpr/2023 (2015-16) Cross Objection No. 14/Rpr/2023 (2018-19) Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution V Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Raipur S Vidhyut Seva Bhawan, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Daganiya, Raipur Pan: Aadcc6047K (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Praveen Khandelwal & Praveen Goyal, Ca'S राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By : Shri Debashish Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2023 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2023

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Khandelwal & PraveenFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)

actual cost of the assets for the purpose of claiming depreciation u/s 32 of the Act in terms of Explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer relying on the decision of Hon’ble Hyderabad Tribunal in the case of AP State Electricity Board (supra) held

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur vs. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd., Raipur

In the result ground 2 of the CO

ITA 182/RPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.181/Rpr/2023 (Ay-2010-2011) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 182/Rpr/2023 (Ay:2011-2012) आयकरअपीलसं. /Ita No. 183/Rpr/2023(Ay: 2012-2013) आयकरअपीलसं. /Ita No. 184/Rpr/2023(Ay: 2013-2014) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 185/Rpr/2023(Ay: 2014-2015) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 186/Rpr/2023(Ay: 2015-2016) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 187/Rpr/2023(Ay: 2017-2018) आयकरअपीलसं. /Ita No. 188/Rpr/2023(Ay: 2018-2019) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Circle-1(1), Raipur S Company Limited, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Vidhyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur Pan: Aadcc6047K & Cross Objection No. 10/Rpr/2023 (2011-12) Cross Objection No. 11/Rpr/2023 (2012-13) Cross Objection No. 12/Rpr/2023 (2014-15) Cross Objection No. 13/Rpr/2023 (2015-16) Cross Objection No. 14/Rpr/2023 (2018-19) Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution V Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Raipur S Vidhyut Seva Bhawan, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Daganiya, Raipur Pan: Aadcc6047K (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Praveen Khandelwal & Praveen Goyal, Ca'S राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By : Shri Debashish Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2023 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2023

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Khandelwal & PraveenFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)

actual cost of the assets for the purpose of claiming depreciation u/s 32 of the Act in terms of Explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer relying on the decision of Hon’ble Hyderabad Tribunal in the case of AP State Electricity Board (supra) held