RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, AMBIKAPUR,SURAJPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFFICER, WARD-2, AMBIKAPUR, AMBIKARPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpia

deposited cash in his bank account which in fact resulted for the department to take cognizance in the case of the assessee. The assessee having annual income of Rs. 50,000 – 60,000 and after deducting his sustenance/ expenses, he is left with meagre balance and therefore, he was under huge depression regarding addition made in his case

PRAKASH KUMAR KSHATRIYA,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RAJNANDGAON, RAJNANDGOAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.436/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Prakash Kumar Kshatriya House No.9, Ward No.44, Kaurin Bhata, Shiv Colony, Rajnandgaon-491 441 (C.G.) Pan: Cdhpk3190B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

TDS), Raipur (C.G.), TAX Case No.17/2025, dated 24.02.2025, and (iii) Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal No…………/2025, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024, dated 21st March, 2025. 4. Coming to the merits of the matter, the brief facts in this case are that the assessee is an employee of M/s. Shree Hari Transport Corporation

INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISALI, BHILAI vs. AMIT GAUTAM, RAJNANDGAON

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 566/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

cash deposits, TDS, cash withdrawals etc. Accordingly the case of assessee has been picked up for reassessment u/s 148 of the Act. Assessee

M/S DIVYANSH INFRA ESTATE PVT LTD,RAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(1) RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.424/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Divyansh Infra Estate Private Limited House No.44/487, Arihant Niwas, Satti Bazar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aadcd7801J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

TDS), Raipur (C.G.), TAX Case No.17/2025, dated 24.02.2025, after relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur (supra) had held that a justice oriented and liberal approach be adopted while considering the application filed by the assessee for condonation of delay. That in the recent judgment

HARSHI TRIPATHI, SURGUJA,SURGUJA vs. ITO 1, AMBIKAPUR, AMBIKAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.524/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Harshi Tripathi Nawapare Main Road, Surajpur, Surguja-497 229 Pan: Aonpt1286N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1, Ambikapur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

TDS), Raipur (C.G.), TAX Case No.17/2025, dated 24.02.2025, and (iii) Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal No…………/2025, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024, dated 21st March, 2025, the delay of 93 days involved in the captioned appeal is condoned. 5. Coming to the merits of the case, it is noted that

ANSHUKA TANEJA,AASTHA APARTMENT, SHANKAR NAGAR, RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, CIVIL LINES, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 391/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Anshuka Taneja E-7, E-Block, Aastha Apartment, Shankar Nagar, Opposite Wallfort Orchid, Sector-2, Raipur (C.G.)-492 004 Pan: Adupt5936D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

TDS), Raipur (C.G.), TAX Case No.17/2025, dated 24.02.2025 and (iii) Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal No…………/2025, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024, dated 21st March, 2025. 4. Now coming to the merits of the case as emanating from the assessment order, the addition has been made by the A.O invoking Section

NEELAM CHANDRAKAR, RAJNANDGAON,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

TDS), Raipur (C.G.), TAX Case No.17/2025, dated 24.02.2025, and (iii) Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal No…………/2025, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024, dated 21st March, 2025. A.Y.2011-12 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has assailed legal ground by submitting that the reasons recorded for reassessment proceedings are based on incorrect facts

LEELADHAR CHANDRAKAR, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (3), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

TDS), Raipur (C.G.), TAX Case No.17/2025, dated 24.02.2025, and (iii) Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal No…………/2025, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024, dated 21st March, 2025. A.Y.2011-12 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has assailed legal ground by submitting that the reasons recorded for reassessment proceedings are based on incorrect facts

LEELADHAR CHANDRAKAR, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

TDS), Raipur (C.G.), TAX Case No.17/2025, dated 24.02.2025, and (iii) Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal No…………/2025, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024, dated 21st March, 2025. A.Y.2011-12 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has assailed legal ground by submitting that the reasons recorded for reassessment proceedings are based on incorrect facts

VALLABH CHANDAK,MAHASAMUND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD MAHASAMUND, MAHASAMUND

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.104/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Vallabh Chandak Pro. M/S. Laxmi Pharma Purana Mandi Road, Ganjpara, Mahasamund (C.G.)-493 445 Pan : Akhpc3415A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Ward-Mahasumand (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

TDS by invoking provisions u/s. 40(a)(ia) by ignoring that said NBFC is reputed company, therefore, inference may be drawn at it might have incorporated interest received from the assessee and paid due tax thereon at the time of filing return, which ultimately results in no loss of revenue to the department. The assessee prays that the disallowance

LAXMI KANT DUBEY, DURG,DURG vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.595/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Laxmi Kant Dubey 245, Ward No.54, Phool Gaon, Durg-491 228 (C.G.) Pan: Bbxpd9623B

TDS), Raipur (C.G.), TAX Case No.17/2025, dated 24.02.2025, after relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur (supra) had held that a justice oriented and liberal approach be adopted while considering the application filed by the assessee for condonation of delay. That in the recent judgment

SUBHASH MURARKA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.176/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Subhash Murarka C-1/85/186-R7, Swarnabhoomi, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Pan: Aeqpm4578P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

TDS), Raipur (C.G.), TAX Case No.17/2025, dated 24.02.2025, iii. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal No…………/2025, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024, dated 21st March, 2025. 4 Subhash Murarka Vs. Income Tax Officer, Raipur In all the above referred judgments, the core issue is that while

SUSHIL KUMAR AGRAWAL,KORBA vs. DEPUTY COMMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, KORBA, KORBA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.148/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Prop. Of M/S. Shrikishan & Co., Darri Road, Korba (C.G.) Pan : Acgpa4350B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

TDS or under the mistaken belief that the methodology of splitting a single payment into parts below Rs. 20,000/- would provide him escape from the rigour of the provisions of the Act providing for disallowance. In either event, the appellant had not been a bonafide assessee who had made the deduction and deposited it subsequently. Obviously, the appellant could

SHRIKANT SHARMA, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.148/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shrikant Sharma Village: Birjhapur, Taluka: Dhamdha, Dist: Durg-491 331 (C.G.) Pan: Cayps4948D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

TDS), Raipur (C.G.), TAX Case No.17/2025, dated 24.02.2025, after relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur (supra) had held that a justice oriented and liberal approach be adopted while considering the application filed by the assessee for condonation of delay. 4 Shrikant Sharma

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1(1), RAIPUR vs. BHARAT AGRO INDUSTRIES, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed as above

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am

TDS in view of judgment of ITAT, Delhi's Bench in case of India Flysafe Aviation Ltd. Versus DCIT, Circle-12 (1), New Delhi -2024 (1) TMI 696. 6. Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the ad-hoc disallowances made

MITESH SINGHANIA,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2) RAIPUR, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.410/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Mitesh Singhania Singhania Bhawan, Subhas Road, Near Telghani Naka, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Avops1474P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur (C.G) ……""यथ" / Respondent

TDS was deducted u/s 194DA which is applicable in the case where the maturity proceeds are not eligible for exemption u/s 10(10D). In view of the same, CPC included the amount of Rs.7,41,718/- within taxable income while' processing the return u/s 143(1) of the Act. The appellant claimed that the impugned Intimation

PRIYESH SINGHANIA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.462/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Priyesh Singhania 730/1, Radha Kunj, Opposite Vip Guest House, Pahuna, Shankar Nagar Main Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aoups7838A ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

TDS was deducted u/s 194DA which is applicable in the case where the maturity proceeds are not eligible for exemption u/s 10(10D). In view of the same, CPC included the amount of Rs.7,41,718/- within taxable income while' processing the return u/s 143(1) of the Act. The appellant claimed that the impugned Intimation

HE DISTRICT MARKETING OFFICER, CHHATTISGARH,RAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.291/Rpr/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 District Marketing Officer, The Ito (Tds), Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Vs Raipur (Cg). Marketing Federation Limited, Near Hotel Atithi, Near Railway Station, Jagdalpur (Cg). Tan: Jbpc0191B Appellant/Assessee Respondent / Revenue Applicant By Shri Nikhilesh Beghani Respondent By Shri G.N. Singh Date Of Hearing 03/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-I, Raipur, Dated 01.03.2016For Assessment Year 2013-14Emanating From The Order Of Ito (Tds) U/S 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Also Called As ‘The Act’)Dated 18.03.2014. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal: “Ground No.I That The Ex-Parte Appellate Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ("The Ld.Cit(A)") Is Highly Unjustified, Bad In Law, Without Providing Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard & Not In Accordance With The Provisions Of Law. It Is

deposited tax at source under the provisions of section 194-I of the I.T. Act, the details of which are mentioned elsewhere in this reply.” 6. Thus, it is a fact that TDS was not deducted as per provisions of the Act. It is also not denied by the assessee that the TDS was deductible on the said payments

TORAN LAL VERMA, BHILAI,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.573/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Toran Lal Varma House No.39, Ward-3, Village: Kachandur, Post-Karanja, Bhilai-490 024 (C.G.) Pan: Akfpv6450J

TDS), Raipur (C.G.), TAX Case No.17/2025, dated 24.02.2025, and (iii) Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal No…………/2025, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024, dated 21st March, 2025. 5. Coming to the merits of the matter, it is noted that in this case assessment has been completed by the A.O u/s.144