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

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 SUSHIL KUMAR AGRAWAL, KORBA,KORBA(CG) vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,RANGE KORBA, KORBA(CG)

In the result, appeal of the assesee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 93 & 94/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Prop. Of M/S. Shrikishan & Co., T.P Nagar, Korba (C.G.) Pan : Acgpa4350B .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

section 14A, as it was added back in the income of the assessee in preceding Assessment Year i.e. 2010-11.” 52. At the very outset of the hearing of the appeal the Ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘AR’) for the assessee submitted that he was not pressing the ground of appeal No.1. In view of the concession

SHRI SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR AGRAWAL, KORBA,KORBA(CG) vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,RANGE KORBA, KORBA(CG)

In the result, appeal of the assesee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 93 & 94/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Prop. Of M/S. Shrikishan & Co., T.P Nagar, Korba (C.G.) Pan : Acgpa4350B .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

section 14A, as it was added back in the income of the assessee in preceding Assessment Year i.e. 2010-11.” 52. At the very outset of the hearing of the appeal the Ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘AR’) for the assessee submitted that he was not pressing the ground of appeal No.1. In view of the concession

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SUDERSAN 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

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

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

NANESH PROJECTS,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY 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