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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Similarly, regarding imposition of penalty against addition of Rs.11385.80 lakhs made by disallowing provisions for leave 14 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) encashment it is not the case of the appellant company that provisions of section 43B

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Similarly, regarding imposition of penalty against addition of Rs.11385.80 lakhs made by disallowing provisions for leave 14 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) encashment it is not the case of the appellant company that provisions of section 43B

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Similarly, regarding imposition of penalty against addition of Rs.11385.80 lakhs made by disallowing provisions for leave 14 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) encashment it is not the case of the appellant company that provisions of section 43B

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Similarly, regarding imposition of penalty against addition of Rs.11385.80 lakhs made by disallowing provisions for leave 14 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) encashment it is not the case of the appellant company that provisions of section 43B

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Similarly, regarding imposition of penalty against addition of Rs.11385.80 lakhs made by disallowing provisions for leave 14 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) encashment it is not the case of the appellant company that provisions of section 43B

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Similarly, regarding imposition of penalty against addition of Rs.11385.80 lakhs made by disallowing provisions for leave 14 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) encashment it is not the case of the appellant company that provisions of section 43B

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Similarly, regarding imposition of penalty against addition of Rs.11385.80 lakhs made by disallowing provisions for leave 14 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) encashment it is not the case of the appellant company that provisions of section 43B

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Similarly, regarding imposition of penalty against addition of Rs.11385.80 lakhs made by disallowing provisions for leave 14 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) encashment it is not the case of the appellant company that provisions of section 43B

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Similarly, regarding imposition of penalty against addition of Rs.11385.80 lakhs made by disallowing provisions for leave 14 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) encashment it is not the case of the appellant company that provisions of section 43B

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Similarly, regarding imposition of penalty against addition of Rs.11385.80 lakhs made by disallowing provisions for leave 14 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) encashment it is not the case of the appellant company that provisions of section 43B

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Similarly, regarding imposition of penalty against addition of Rs.11385.80 lakhs made by disallowing provisions for leave 14 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) encashment it is not the case of the appellant company that provisions of section 43B

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

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2 & 3/Rpr/2023 Co Nos. 19 & 20/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

Section 139 of the Act, the same was allowable u/s. 43B(b) of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that the view of the assessee company at the time of filing the original/revised return of income was duly supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Alom Extrusions Limited

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

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2 & 3/Rpr/2023 Co Nos. 19 & 20/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

Section 139 of the Act, the same was allowable u/s. 43B(b) of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that the view of the assessee company at the time of filing the original/revised return of income was duly supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Alom Extrusions Limited

VISAKHAPATNAM INDUSTRIAL WATER SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 657/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2012-13) Visakhapatnam Industrial Water V. Dy. Cit – Circle – 5(1) Supply Company Limited Visakhapatnam Gvmc Room No.204 Tenneti Bhavan, Asilmetta Junction Visakhapatnam – 530002 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aabcv2240H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

43B of the Act, which was also upheld by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the year under consideration in quantum proceedings. 4. In the meanwhile, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated in the case of the assessee for the year under consideration and vide order dated 26.12.2023 passed under section 271