CHHATTISGARH STATE POWER GENERATION CO. LTD.,RAIPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.16/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. O/O. Executive Director-Finance Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.24/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

24)(x) of the Act constitute the income of the assessee. It was observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court as under: “Analysis and Conclusions 30. The factual narration reveals two diametrically opposed views in regard to the interpretation of Section 36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes

THE CHHATTISGARH STATE POWER GENERATION COMPANY LIMITED, RAIPUR,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(2),RAIPUR, RAIPUR (CG)

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.16/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. O/O. Executive Director-Finance Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.24/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

24)(x) of the Act constitute the income of the assessee. It was observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court as under: “Analysis and Conclusions 30. The factual narration reveals two diametrically opposed views in regard to the interpretation of Section 36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes

BEC PROJECTS LTD., ,BHILAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 06/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Bec Projects Limited 4/5, Industrial Estate, Bhilai (C.G.)-490 020 Pan : Aaacb9275H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

24)(x) of the Act constitute the income of the assessee. It was observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court as under: “Analysis and Conclusions 30. The factual narration reveals two diametrically opposed views in regard to the interpretation of Section 36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)-1, RAIPUR vs. M/S. CHHATTISGARH STEEL & POWER LIMITED, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 96/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

24)(x) of the Act. 2. Disallowance u/s.14A r.w.r. 8D Rs.1,02,18,074/- 3. Addition on account of unabsorbed Rs. 89,41,411/- depreciation reduced to the extent for the last year A.Y.2010-11 5. Aggrieved the assessee company carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) who partly allowed the same in so far the aforesaid additions/disallowances were

M/S ASHOK ENGINEERING WORKS,KORBA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 53 & 54/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 M/S. Ashoka Engineering Works, Lig-51, Sada Colony, Jamnipali, Korba (C.G.)-495 450 Pan : Aaafw5581G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

24)(x) of the Act constitute the income of the assessee. It was observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court as under: “Analysis and Conclusions 30. The factual narration reveals two diametrically opposed views in regard to the interpretation of Section 36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes

M/S ASHOKA ENGINEERING WORKS,KORBA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 53 & 54/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 M/S. Ashoka Engineering Works, Lig-51, Sada Colony, Jamnipali, Korba (C.G.)-495 450 Pan : Aaafw5581G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

24)(x) of the Act constitute the income of the assessee. It was observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court as under: “Analysis and Conclusions 30. The factual narration reveals two diametrically opposed views in regard to the interpretation of Section 36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes

SHRI RAM FINANCE CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,RAIPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

24)(x) of the Act constitute the income of the assessee. It was observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court as under: “Analysis and Conclusions 30. The factual narration reveals two diametrically opposed views in regard to the interpretation of Section 36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes

M/S PRECISION ERECTORS AND SERVICES PVT. LTD,,KORBA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR (APPEAL), BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

24)(x) of the Act constitute the income of the assessee. It was observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court as under: “Analysis and Conclusions 30. The factual narration reveals two diametrically opposed views in regard to the interpretation of Section 36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes

SUDERSAN SUKUMARAN,RAIGARH vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

24)(x) of the Act constitute the income of the assessee. It was observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court as under: “Analysis and Conclusions 30. The factual narration reveals two diametrically opposed views in regard to the interpretation of Section 36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes

M/S RAJENDRA ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES , KORBA,KORBA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

24)(x) of the Act constitute the income of the assessee. It was observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court as under: “Analysis and Conclusions 30. The factual narration reveals two diametrically opposed views in regard to the interpretation of Section 36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes

M/S RAJENDRA ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES, KORBA,KORBA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

24)(x) of the Act constitute the income of the assessee. It was observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court as under: “Analysis and Conclusions 30. The factual narration reveals two diametrically opposed views in regard to the interpretation of Section 36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes

M/S NEELKANTHAM SYSTEMS PVT. LTD,,KORBA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTER, DELHI

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

24)(x) of the Act constitute the income of the assessee. It was observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court as under: “Analysis and Conclusions 30. The factual narration reveals two diametrically opposed views in regard to the interpretation of Section 36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes

HORA TRANSPORT CO. PVT. LTD,,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTER (CPC)), BENGALURU, DELHI

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

24)(x) of the Act constitute the income of the assessee. It was observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court as under: “Analysis and Conclusions 30. The factual narration reveals two diametrically opposed views in regard to the interpretation of Section 36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes

KUNJ BIHARI AGRAWAL,KORBA vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

24)(x) of the Act constitute the income of the assessee. It was observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court as under: “Analysis and Conclusions 30. The factual narration reveals two diametrically opposed views in regard to the interpretation of Section 36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes

MOHAN SUKUMARAN,RAIGARH vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

24)(x) of the Act constitute the income of the assessee. It was observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court as under: “Analysis and Conclusions 30. The factual narration reveals two diametrically opposed views in regard to the interpretation of Section 36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes

SHRI RAM FINANCE CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,RAIPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

24)(x) of the Act constitute the income of the assessee. It was observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court as under: “Analysis and Conclusions 30. The factual narration reveals two diametrically opposed views in regard to the interpretation of Section 36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes

SHIVNATH TRACTORS,KANKER vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

24)(x) of the Act constitute the income of the assessee. It was observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court as under: “Analysis and Conclusions 30. The factual narration reveals two diametrically opposed views in regard to the interpretation of Section 36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes

MESERS SKY AUTOMOBILES,,RAIPUR (CG) vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1),, RAIPUR (CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

24)(x) of the Act constitute the income of the assessee. It was observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court as under: “Analysis and Conclusions 30. The factual narration reveals two diametrically opposed views in regard to the interpretation of Section 36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes