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.

b). No doubt, many of these decisions also dealt with Section 36(va) with its explanation. However, the primary consideration in all the judgments, cited by the assessee, was that they adopted the approach indicated in the ruling in Alom Extrusions. As noticed previously, Alom Extrutions did not consider the fact of the introduction of Section 2

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.

b). No doubt, many of these decisions also dealt with Section 36(va) with its explanation. However, the primary consideration in all the judgments, cited by the assessee, was that they adopted the approach indicated in the ruling in Alom Extrusions. As noticed previously, Alom Extrutions did not consider the fact of the introduction of Section 2

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

b). No doubt, many of these decisions also dealt with Section 36(va) with its explanation. However, the primary consideration in all the judgments, cited by the assessee, was that they adopted the approach indicated in the ruling in Alom Extrusions. As noticed previously, Alom Extrutions did not consider the fact of the introduction of Section 2

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I, RAIPUR vs. MESERS CHHATTISGARH STEEL & POWER LIMITED, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.91 & 92/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Chhattisgarh Steel & Power Limited. 142, Sahid Smarak, G.E Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaccc7479G ……""यथ" / Respondent

disallowed under Section 43-B which, as stated above, was inserted with effect from 1-4-1984 *** 31 M/s. Chhattisgarh Steel & Power Ltd.Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Raipur ITA Nos. 91 & 92/RPR/2020 22. It is important to note once again that, by the Finance Act, 2003, not only is the second proviso deleted but even the first proviso is sought

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL)-I, RAIPUR vs. MESERS CHHATTISGARH STEEL & POWER LIMITED, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.91 & 92/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Chhattisgarh Steel & Power Limited. 142, Sahid Smarak, G.E Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaccc7479G ……""यथ" / Respondent

disallowed under Section 43-B which, as stated above, was inserted with effect from 1-4-1984 *** 31 M/s. Chhattisgarh Steel & Power Ltd.Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Raipur ITA Nos. 91 & 92/RPR/2020 22. It is important to note once again that, by the Finance Act, 2003, not only is the second proviso deleted but even the first proviso is sought

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

b). No doubt, many of these decisions also dealt with Section 36(va) with its explanation. However, the primary consideration in all the judgments, cited by the assessee, was that they adopted the approach indicated in the ruling in Alom Extrusions. As noticed previously, Alom Extrutions did not consider the fact of the introduction of Section 2

M/S. G.P. INFRAVENTURES ,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(4), RAIPUR

The appeal of the department stands disposed off

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No.76/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), V M/S G.P. Infraventures, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, S Shree Tower, Shankar Nagar, Central Revenue Building, Raipur (C.G.) Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aanfg6074B (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) : (""यथ" / Respondent) (Ita No.94/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S G.P. Infraventures, V Income Tax Officer-1(4), Shree Tower, Shankar Nagar, S Raipur Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aanfg6074B (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of : 23.11.2023 7Pronouncement

disallowance u/s 40A (3) of the IT Act on account of amount paid towards purchase of land which is stock-in trade of the assessee and claimed as expenditure as the assessee had not brought anything before the Assessing officer which showed that the cash payments were made out of business expediency? 4. "Whether on the facts and circumstances

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), RAIPUR vs. MESERS G P INFRAVENTURES, RAIPUR

The appeal of the department stands disposed off

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No.76/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), V M/S G.P. Infraventures, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, S Shree Tower, Shankar Nagar, Central Revenue Building, Raipur (C.G.) Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aanfg6074B (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) : (""यथ" / Respondent) (Ita No.94/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S G.P. Infraventures, V Income Tax Officer-1(4), Shree Tower, Shankar Nagar, S Raipur Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aanfg6074B (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of : 23.11.2023 7Pronouncement

disallowance u/s 40A (3) of the IT Act on account of amount paid towards purchase of land which is stock-in trade of the assessee and claimed as expenditure as the assessee had not brought anything before the Assessing officer which showed that the cash payments were made out of business expediency? 4. "Whether on the facts and circumstances

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

b). No doubt, many of these decisions also dealt with Section 36(va) with its explanation. However, the primary consideration in all the judgments, cited by the assessee, was that they adopted the approach indicated in the ruling in Alom Extrusions. As noticed previously, Alom Extrutions did not consider the fact of the introduction of Section 2

N.R. WIRES PRIVATE LIMITED,BHILAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), BHILAI

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

b). No doubt, many of these decisions also dealt with Section 36(va) with its explanation. However, the primary consideration in all the judgments, cited by the assessee, was that they adopted the approach indicated in the ruling in Alom Extrusions. As noticed previously, Alom Extrutions did not consider the fact of the introduction of Section 2

KINGER AGRICO PRIVATE LIMITED,RAIPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

b). No doubt, many of these decisions also dealt with Section 36(va) with its explanation. However, the primary consideration in all the judgments, cited by the assessee, was that they adopted the approach indicated in the ruling in Alom Extrusions. As noticed previously, Alom Extrutions did not consider the fact of the introduction of Section 2

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

b). No doubt, many of these decisions also dealt with Section 36(va) with its explanation. However, the primary consideration in all the judgments, cited by the assessee, was that they adopted the approach indicated in the ruling in Alom Extrusions. As noticed previously, Alom Extrutions did not consider the fact of the introduction of Section 2

M/S. PRENTIA CONSTRUCTIONS,JAGDALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-JAGDALPUR, JAGDALPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

b). No doubt, many of these decisions also dealt with Section 36(va) with its explanation. However, the primary consideration in all the judgments, cited by the assessee, was that they adopted the approach indicated in the ruling in Alom Extrusions. As noticed previously, Alom Extrutions did not consider the fact of the introduction of Section 2

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

b). No doubt, many of these decisions also dealt with Section 36(va) with its explanation. However, the primary consideration in all the judgments, cited by the assessee, was that they adopted the approach indicated in the ruling in Alom Extrusions. As noticed previously, Alom Extrutions did not consider the fact of the introduction of Section 2

MESERS VICON MOTORCYCLE AND SCOOTER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -4(1), RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

b). No doubt, many of these decisions also dealt with Section 36(va) with its explanation. However, the primary consideration in all the judgments, cited by the assessee, was that they adopted the approach indicated in the ruling in Alom Extrusions. As noticed previously, Alom Extrutions did not consider the fact of the introduction of Section 2

M/S. PRENITA CONSTRUCTIONS,JAGDALPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

b). No doubt, many of these decisions also dealt with Section 36(va) with its explanation. However, the primary consideration in all the judgments, cited by the assessee, was that they adopted the approach indicated in the ruling in Alom Extrusions. As noticed previously, Alom Extrutions did not consider the fact of the introduction of Section 2

NANESH PROJECTS,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

b). No doubt, many of these decisions also dealt with Section 36(va) with its explanation. However, the primary consideration in all the judgments, cited by the assessee, was that they adopted the approach indicated in the ruling in Alom Extrusions. As noticed previously, Alom Extrutions did not consider the fact of the introduction of Section 2

JHARNA JAISWAL,RAIPUR vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

b). No doubt, many of these decisions also dealt with Section 36(va) with its explanation. However, the primary consideration in all the judgments, cited by the assessee, was that they adopted the approach indicated in the ruling in Alom Extrusions. As noticed previously, Alom Extrutions did not consider the fact of the introduction of Section 2