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.

43(6) of the Act are not applicable in the present case. The aforesaid legal position is also fortified by the fact the WDV of the assets as per the Act which were transferred to the assessee are also not available, on account of the fact that all assets classifiable under one block sets formed part of that block

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.

43(6) of the Act are not applicable in the present case. The aforesaid legal position is also fortified by the fact the WDV of the assets as per the Act which were transferred to the assessee are also not available, on account of the fact that all assets classifiable under one block sets formed part of that block

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

depreciation of Rs.102.22 lakhs on Apollo Hospital building. 4(b). That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) have erred in not appreciating the fact that Apollo Hospital was owned by the Appellant company and used for the treatment of the workman of the company, therefore the same does not tantamount to furnishing

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

depreciation of Rs.102.22 lakhs on Apollo Hospital building. 4(b). That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) have erred in not appreciating the fact that Apollo Hospital was owned by the Appellant company and used for the treatment of the workman of the company, therefore the same does not tantamount to furnishing

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

depreciation of Rs.102.22 lakhs on Apollo Hospital building. 4(b). That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) have erred in not appreciating the fact that Apollo Hospital was owned by the Appellant company and used for the treatment of the workman of the company, therefore the same does not tantamount to furnishing

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

depreciation of Rs.102.22 lakhs on Apollo Hospital building. 4(b). That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) have erred in not appreciating the fact that Apollo Hospital was owned by the Appellant company and used for the treatment of the workman of the company, therefore the same does not tantamount to furnishing

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

depreciation of Rs.102.22 lakhs on Apollo Hospital building. 4(b). That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) have erred in not appreciating the fact that Apollo Hospital was owned by the Appellant company and used for the treatment of the workman of the company, therefore the same does not tantamount to furnishing

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

depreciation of Rs.102.22 lakhs on Apollo Hospital building. 4(b). That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) have erred in not appreciating the fact that Apollo Hospital was owned by the Appellant company and used for the treatment of the workman of the company, therefore the same does not tantamount to furnishing

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

depreciation of Rs.102.22 lakhs on Apollo Hospital building. 4(b). That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) have erred in not appreciating the fact that Apollo Hospital was owned by the Appellant company and used for the treatment of the workman of the company, therefore the same does not tantamount to furnishing

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

depreciation of Rs.102.22 lakhs on Apollo Hospital building. 4(b). That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) have erred in not appreciating the fact that Apollo Hospital was owned by the Appellant company and used for the treatment of the workman of the company, therefore the same does not tantamount to furnishing

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

depreciation of Rs.102.22 lakhs on Apollo Hospital building. 4(b). That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) have erred in not appreciating the fact that Apollo Hospital was owned by the Appellant company and used for the treatment of the workman of the company, therefore the same does not tantamount to furnishing

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

depreciation of Rs.102.22 lakhs on Apollo Hospital building. 4(b). That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) have erred in not appreciating the fact that Apollo Hospital was owned by the Appellant company and used for the treatment of the workman of the company, therefore the same does not tantamount to furnishing

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

depreciation of Rs.102.22 lakhs on Apollo Hospital building. 4(b). That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) have erred in not appreciating the fact that Apollo Hospital was owned by the Appellant company and used for the treatment of the workman of the company, therefore the same does not tantamount to furnishing

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

depreciation of Rs.102.22 lakhs on Apollo Hospital building. 4(b). That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) have erred in not appreciating the fact that Apollo Hospital was owned by the Appellant company and used for the treatment of the workman of the company, therefore the same does not tantamount to furnishing

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

depreciation of Rs.102.22 lakhs on Apollo Hospital building. 4(b). That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) have erred in not appreciating the fact that Apollo Hospital was owned by the Appellant company and used for the treatment of the workman of the company, therefore the same does not tantamount to furnishing

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, KORBA vs. M/S. DEE VEE PROJECT LTD., KORBA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed/partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.69/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle, Korba (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Dee Vee Project Ltd. First Floor, Vikas Complex, P.H. Road, Korba (C.G.) Pan : Aaecd4619B ……""यथ" / Respondent

43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions, what is discernible is that Parliament’s endeavour in introducing Section 43B [which opens with its non-obstante clause] was to primarily ensure that deductions otherwise permissible and hitherto claimed on mercantile basis, were expressly conditioned, in certain cases upon payment. In other words

K M AUTOMOBILES,KORBA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1, KORBA

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 100/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 K M Automobiles Plot No.187, Transport Nagar, Korba, Chhatisgarh-495 677 Pan: Aanfk0386L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions, what is discernible is that Parliament’s endeavour in introducing Section 43B [which opens with its non-obstante clause] was to primarily ensure that deductions otherwise permissible and hitherto claimed on mercantile basis, were expressly conditioned, in certain cases upon payment. In other words

M/S. RAJ PIPES,RAJNANDGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions, what is discernible is that Parliament’s endeavour in introducing Section 43B [which opens with its non-obstante clause] was to primarily ensure that deductions otherwise permissible and hitherto claimed on mercantile basis, were expressly conditioned, in certain cases upon payment. In other words