DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COAL FIELDS LTD.,, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

justice, it may also be held ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. 191. As a result, we hold that Dilip N. Shroff treats omnibus show cause notices as betraying non-application of mind and disapproves of the practice, to be particular, of issuing notices in printed form without deleting or striking off the inapplicable parts of that generic notice

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

justice, it may also be held ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. 191. As a result, we hold that Dilip N. Shroff treats omnibus show cause notices as betraying non-application of mind and disapproves of the practice, to be particular, of issuing notices in printed form without deleting or striking off the inapplicable parts of that generic notice

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 1(1)BILASPUR, BILASPUR(CG) vs. THE SOUTH EASTERN COAL FIELDS LTD., BILASPUR, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

justice, it may also be held ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. 191. As a result, we hold that Dilip N. Shroff treats omnibus show cause notices as betraying non-application of mind and disapproves of the practice, to be particular, of issuing notices in printed form without deleting or striking off the inapplicable parts of that generic notice

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), BILASPUR vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED, BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

justice, it may also be held ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. 191. As a result, we hold that Dilip N. Shroff treats omnibus show cause notices as betraying non-application of mind and disapproves of the practice, to be particular, of issuing notices in printed form without deleting or striking off the inapplicable parts of that generic notice

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD,BILASPUR(CG) vs. DY.. C.I.T.-1(1), BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

justice, it may also be held ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. 191. As a result, we hold that Dilip N. Shroff treats omnibus show cause notices as betraying non-application of mind and disapproves of the practice, to be particular, of issuing notices in printed form without deleting or striking off the inapplicable parts of that generic notice

THE SOUTH EASTERN COAL FIELDS LTD., BILASPUR,BILASPUR(CG) vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE , 1(1)BILASPUR, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

justice, it may also be held ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. 191. As a result, we hold that Dilip N. Shroff treats omnibus show cause notices as betraying non-application of mind and disapproves of the practice, to be particular, of issuing notices in printed form without deleting or striking off the inapplicable parts of that generic notice

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

justice, it may also be held ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. 191. As a result, we hold that Dilip N. Shroff treats omnibus show cause notices as betraying non-application of mind and disapproves of the practice, to be particular, of issuing notices in printed form without deleting or striking off the inapplicable parts of that generic notice

SOUTH EASTERN COAL FIELDS LTD.,,BILASPUR(CG) vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

justice, it may also be held ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. 191. As a result, we hold that Dilip N. Shroff treats omnibus show cause notices as betraying non-application of mind and disapproves of the practice, to be particular, of issuing notices in printed form without deleting or striking off the inapplicable parts of that generic notice

THE DY. CIT- CIR.-1(1),, BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFILDS LTD.,, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

justice, it may also be held ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. 191. As a result, we hold that Dilip N. Shroff treats omnibus show cause notices as betraying non-application of mind and disapproves of the practice, to be particular, of issuing notices in printed form without deleting or striking off the inapplicable parts of that generic notice

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED,BILASPUR vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

justice, it may also be held ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. 191. As a result, we hold that Dilip N. Shroff treats omnibus show cause notices as betraying non-application of mind and disapproves of the practice, to be particular, of issuing notices in printed form without deleting or striking off the inapplicable parts of that generic notice

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

justice, it may also be held ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. 191. As a result, we hold that Dilip N. Shroff treats omnibus show cause notices as betraying non-application of mind and disapproves of the practice, to be particular, of issuing notices in printed form without deleting or striking off the inapplicable parts of that generic notice

EARTHSTAHL & ALLOYS LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.478/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Earthstahl & Alloys Limited 5B Mohini Merline, Jayshree Vihar Pandritarai Mandi Gate, Ravigram S.O, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Aacce3567F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this 'section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

PANCHSHEEL SOLVENT PVT. LTD., RAJANANDGAON,RAJANANDGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Appeal is allowed, partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 110/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2016-17)

natural justice. Therefore, the claim of the assessee is remains unstainable for assessment order passed by the Id. AO is bad in law as well as on the facts and circumstances of the case." Therefore, following the view taken in the case cited above, the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be dismissed accordingly, Therefore, appeal on these grounds

PRADEEP KUMAR AGRAWAL, DHAMTARI,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 158, 159 & 160/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18)

justice. However, the assessee did not submit the details called for till the date of completion of assessment. As the assessee was non-responsive, the case was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the I T Act on 26/03/2022, the final conclusion by the Ld. AO was that the credits in bank account of the assessee remained unexplained

PRADEEP KUMAR AGRAWAL, DHAMTARI,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 158, 159 & 160/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18)

justice. However, the assessee did not submit the details called for till the date of completion of assessment. As the assessee was non-responsive, the case was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the I T Act on 26/03/2022, the final conclusion by the Ld. AO was that the credits in bank account of the assessee remained unexplained

PRADEEP KUMAR AGRAWAL, DHAMTARI,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 158, 159 & 160/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18)

justice. However, the assessee did not submit the details called for till the date of completion of assessment. As the assessee was non-responsive, the case was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the I T Act on 26/03/2022, the final conclusion by the Ld. AO was that the credits in bank account of the assessee remained unexplained

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. CHHATTISGARH STATE POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD., RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result ground 2 of the CO

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

nature and the amounts had been reduced from the cost of assets for calculation of depreciation. The AO was not convinced with the explanation of the appellant. The AO observed that in AY 2009-10, this amount was treated as revenue subsidy by the AO and had been added as income of the appellant. This action had been confirmed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. CHHATTISGARH STATE POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD., RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result ground 2 of the CO

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

nature and the amounts had been reduced from the cost of assets for calculation of depreciation. The AO was not convinced with the explanation of the appellant. The AO observed that in AY 2009-10, this amount was treated as revenue subsidy by the AO and had been added as income of the appellant. This action had been confirmed