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

45. A reading of the judgment in Alom Extrusions, would reveal that this court, did not consider Sections 2(24)(x) and 36(1)(va). Furthermore, the separate provisions in Section 36(1) for employers’ contribution and employees’ contribution, too went unnoticed. The court observed inter alia, that: “15. …It is important to note once again that, by Finance

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

45. A reading of the judgment in Alom Extrusions, would reveal that this court, did not consider Sections 2(24)(x) and 36(1)(va). Furthermore, the separate provisions in Section 36(1) for employers’ contribution and employees’ contribution, too went unnoticed. The court observed inter alia, that: “15. …It is important to note once again that, by Finance

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.

45. A reading of the judgment in Alom Extrusions, would reveal that this court, did not consider Sections 2(24)(x) and 36(1)(va). Furthermore, the separate provisions in Section 36(1) for employers’ contribution and employees’ contribution, too went unnoticed. The court observed inter alia, that: “15. …It is important to note once again that, by Finance

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.

45. A reading of the judgment in Alom Extrusions, would reveal that this court, did not consider Sections 2(24)(x) and 36(1)(va). Furthermore, the separate provisions in Section 36(1) for employers’ contribution and employees’ contribution, too went unnoticed. The court observed inter alia, that: “15. …It is important to note once again that, by Finance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. S.P. BUILDCON PVT. LTD., RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 35 & 38/Rpr/2023) (Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V S.P. Buildcon Private Limited Circle-1(1), S Ff-06, Shyam Plaza, Pandri Bus Stand, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Raipur Pan: Aajcs0653H (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) . (""यथ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Amit M. Jain, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 05-09-2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2023

45,320/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS. During the assessment proceedings, it was explained before the learned AO that provisions of Sec. 43CA were not applicable as the company had executed an Agreement for sale of shops in earlier year and also received part consideration through banking channel. The above submission was not considered

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. S.P. BUILDCON PVT. LTD., RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 35 & 38/Rpr/2023) (Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V S.P. Buildcon Private Limited Circle-1(1), S Ff-06, Shyam Plaza, Pandri Bus Stand, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Raipur Pan: Aajcs0653H (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) . (""यथ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Amit M. Jain, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 05-09-2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2023

45,320/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS. During the assessment proceedings, it was explained before the learned AO that provisions of Sec. 43CA were not applicable as the company had executed an Agreement for sale of shops in earlier year and also received part consideration through banking channel. The above submission was not considered

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

45. A reading of the judgment in Alom Extrusions, would reveal that this court, did not consider Sections 2(24)(x) and 36(1)(va). Furthermore, the separate provisions in Section 36(1) for employers’ contribution and employees’ contribution, too went unnoticed. The court observed inter alia, that: “15. …It is important to note once again that, by Finance

THE GRAMIN SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,DHAMTARI(C.G) vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI(C.G)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battull

section 80P(2)(a)(iii) is applicable, disallowance of Rs.5,67,426/- (instead Rs.12,24,880 taken while computing income) being 35% of Rs.16,21,218/- be deleted. 3. PDS Business: - That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) further erred in confirming the addition of Rs.8,38,228/- which is gross profit in PDS a/c. made by the Ld. AO. Prayed that

THE GRAMIN SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,RAIPUR (CG) vs. TJE INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3), RAIPUR (CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battull

section 80P(2)(a)(iii) is applicable, disallowance of Rs.5,67,426/- (instead Rs.12,24,880 taken while computing income) being 35% of Rs.16,21,218/- be deleted. 3. PDS Business: - That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) further erred in confirming the addition of Rs.8,38,228/- which is gross profit in PDS a/c. made by the Ld. AO. Prayed that

THE GRAMIN SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,RAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3), RAIPUR (CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battull

section 80P(2)(a)(iii) is applicable, disallowance of Rs.5,67,426/- (instead Rs.12,24,880 taken while computing income) being 35% of Rs.16,21,218/- be deleted. 3. PDS Business: - That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) further erred in confirming the addition of Rs.8,38,228/- which is gross profit in PDS a/c. made by the Ld. AO. Prayed that

THE GRAMIN SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3), RAIPUR (CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battull

section 80P(2)(a)(iii) is applicable, disallowance of Rs.5,67,426/- (instead Rs.12,24,880 taken while computing income) being 35% of Rs.16,21,218/- be deleted. 3. PDS Business: - That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) further erred in confirming the addition of Rs.8,38,228/- which is gross profit in PDS a/c. made by the Ld. AO. Prayed that

THE GRAMIN SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3), RAIPUR (CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battull

section 80P(2)(a)(iii) is applicable, disallowance of Rs.5,67,426/- (instead Rs.12,24,880 taken while computing income) being 35% of Rs.16,21,218/- be deleted. 3. PDS Business: - That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) further erred in confirming the addition of Rs.8,38,228/- which is gross profit in PDS a/c. made by the Ld. AO. Prayed that

THE GRAMIN SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,DHAMTARI(C.G) vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI(C.G)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battull

section 80P(2)(a)(iii) is applicable, disallowance of Rs.5,67,426/- (instead Rs.12,24,880 taken while computing income) being 35% of Rs.16,21,218/- be deleted. 3. PDS Business: - That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) further erred in confirming the addition of Rs.8,38,228/- which is gross profit in PDS a/c. made by the Ld. AO. Prayed that

THE GRAMIN SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,DHAMTARI(C.G) vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI(C.G)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battull

section 80P(2)(a)(iii) is applicable, disallowance of Rs.5,67,426/- (instead Rs.12,24,880 taken while computing income) being 35% of Rs.16,21,218/- be deleted. 3. PDS Business: - That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) further erred in confirming the addition of Rs.8,38,228/- which is gross profit in PDS a/c. made by the Ld. AO. Prayed that

THE GRAMIN SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3), RAIPUR (CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battull

section 80P(2)(a)(iii) is applicable, disallowance of Rs.5,67,426/- (instead Rs.12,24,880 taken while computing income) being 35% of Rs.16,21,218/- be deleted. 3. PDS Business: - That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) further erred in confirming the addition of Rs.8,38,228/- which is gross profit in PDS a/c. made by the Ld. AO. Prayed that

HE SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITIT MARYADIT, SURGI,RAJNANDGAON vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-2, RAJNANDGAON

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battull

section 80P(2)(a)(iii) is applicable, disallowance of Rs.5,67,426/- (instead Rs.12,24,880 taken while computing income) being 35% of Rs.16,21,218/- be deleted. 3. PDS Business: - That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) further erred in confirming the addition of Rs.8,38,228/- which is gross profit in PDS a/c. made by the Ld. AO. Prayed that

THE SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITIT MARYADIT,SINGHOLA,RAJNANDGAON vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, RAJNANDGAON

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battull

section 80P(2)(a)(iii) is applicable, disallowance of Rs.5,67,426/- (instead Rs.12,24,880 taken while computing income) being 35% of Rs.16,21,218/- be deleted. 3. PDS Business: - That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) further erred in confirming the addition of Rs.8,38,228/- which is gross profit in PDS a/c. made by the Ld. AO. Prayed that

THE SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITIT MARYADIT,GHATULA,RAJNANDGAON vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-2, RAJNANDGAON

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battull

section 80P(2)(a)(iii) is applicable, disallowance of Rs.5,67,426/- (instead Rs.12,24,880 taken while computing income) being 35% of Rs.16,21,218/- be deleted. 3. PDS Business: - That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) further erred in confirming the addition of Rs.8,38,228/- which is gross profit in PDS a/c. made by the Ld. AO. Prayed that

THE SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITIT MARYADIT,JOSHILAMATI,RAJNANDGAON vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER -1,, RAJNANDGAON

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battull

section 80P(2)(a)(iii) is applicable, disallowance of Rs.5,67,426/- (instead Rs.12,24,880 taken while computing income) being 35% of Rs.16,21,218/- be deleted. 3. PDS Business: - That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) further erred in confirming the addition of Rs.8,38,228/- which is gross profit in PDS a/c. made by the Ld. AO. Prayed that

M/S GRAMIN SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,DHAMTARI(C.G) vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI(C.G)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battull

section 80P(2)(a)(iii) is applicable, disallowance of Rs.5,67,426/- (instead Rs.12,24,880 taken while computing income) being 35% of Rs.16,21,218/- be deleted. 3. PDS Business: - That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) further erred in confirming the addition of Rs.8,38,228/- which is gross profit in PDS a/c. made by the Ld. AO. Prayed that