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.

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 10.09 In view of the above discussion, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation to the assessee on the cost of acquisition of the assets as recorded by the assessee in accordance with the Scheme framed by the Government of Chhattisgarh. Thus, Ground

CHHATTISGARH STATE POWER TRANSMISSION COMPANY LIMITED,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.81/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd. Executive Director (Fin.), Csptcl, Second Floor, Sldc Building, Cseb Office Campus, Danginiya Raipur-492 013 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5773E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 10.09 In view of the above discussion, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation to the assessee on the cost of acquisition of the assets as recorded by the assessee in accordance with the Scheme framed by the Government of Chhattisgarh. Thus, Ground

CHHATTISGARH STATE POWER TRANSMISSION COMPANY LTD,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4(1), RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.81/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd. Executive Director (Fin.), Csptcl, Second Floor, Sldc Building, Cseb Office Campus, Danginiya Raipur-492 013 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5773E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 10.09 In view of the above discussion, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation to the assessee on the cost of acquisition of the assets as recorded by the assessee in accordance with the Scheme framed by the Government of Chhattisgarh. Thus, Ground

M/S. NEELKANTHAM SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,KORBA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 43B or anything contained in that provision would not absolve the assessee from its liability to deposit the employee’s contribution on or before the due date as a condition for deduction. 55. In the light of the above reasoning, this court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the approach of the impugned judgment

SANKALP REALITIES,RAIPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CPC), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 43B or anything contained in that provision would not absolve the assessee from its liability to deposit the employee’s contribution on or before the due date as a condition for deduction. 55. In the light of the above reasoning, this court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the approach of the impugned judgment

M/S SUMEET SYNFAB (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, , BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 43B or anything contained in that provision would not absolve the assessee from its liability to deposit the employee’s contribution on or before the due date as a condition for deduction. 55. In the light of the above reasoning, this court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the approach of the impugned judgment

SUCHEENDRA BABU SUKUMARAN,RAIGARH vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 43B or anything contained in that provision would not absolve the assessee from its liability to deposit the employee’s contribution on or before the due date as a condition for deduction. 55. In the light of the above reasoning, this court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the approach of the impugned judgment

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 43B or anything contained in that provision would not absolve the assessee from its liability to deposit the employee’s contribution on or before the due date as a condition for deduction. 55. In the light of the above reasoning, this court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the approach of the impugned judgment

J P ASSOCIATES,KORBA vs. AD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CPC), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 43B or anything contained in that provision would not absolve the assessee from its liability to deposit the employee’s contribution on or before the due date as a condition for deduction. 55. In the light of the above reasoning, this court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the approach of the impugned judgment

SHRI SHRI RANVEER SINGH VIDHURI,RAIPUR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,-2(1), RAIPUR (CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 43B or anything contained in that provision would not absolve the assessee from its liability to deposit the employee’s contribution on or before the due date as a condition for deduction. 55. In the light of the above reasoning, this court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the approach of the impugned judgment

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 43B or anything contained in that provision would not absolve the assessee from its liability to deposit the employee’s contribution on or before the due date as a condition for deduction. 55. In the light of the above reasoning, this court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the approach of the impugned judgment

SUDERSAN SUKUMARAN,RAIGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 43B or anything contained in that provision would not absolve the assessee from its liability to deposit the employee’s contribution on or before the due date as a condition for deduction. 55. In the light of the above reasoning, this court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the approach of the impugned judgment

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 43B or anything contained in that provision would not absolve the assessee from its liability to deposit the employee’s contribution on or before the due date as a condition for deduction. 55. In the light of the above reasoning, this court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the approach of the impugned judgment

JHARNA JAISWAL,RAIPUR vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 43B or anything contained in that provision would not absolve the assessee from its liability to deposit the employee’s contribution on or before the due date as a condition for deduction. 55. In the light of the above reasoning, this court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the approach of the impugned judgment

J B CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,BILASPUR vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 43B or anything contained in that provision would not absolve the assessee from its liability to deposit the employee’s contribution on or before the due date as a condition for deduction. 55. In the light of the above reasoning, this court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the approach of the impugned judgment

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 43B or anything contained in that provision would not absolve the assessee from its liability to deposit the employee’s contribution on or before the due date as a condition for deduction. 55. In the light of the above reasoning, this court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the approach of the impugned judgment

M/S. NEELKANTHAM SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,KORBA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 43B or anything contained in that provision would not absolve the assessee from its liability to deposit the employee’s contribution on or before the due date as a condition for deduction. 55. In the light of the above reasoning, this court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the approach of the impugned judgment

KAILASH KHEMANI,RAIPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 43B or anything contained in that provision would not absolve the assessee from its liability to deposit the employee’s contribution on or before the due date as a condition for deduction. 55. In the light of the above reasoning, this court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the approach of the impugned judgment

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 43B or anything contained in that provision would not absolve the assessee from its liability to deposit the employee’s contribution on or before the due date as a condition for deduction. 55. In the light of the above reasoning, this court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the approach of the impugned judgment