ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), RAIPUR vs. M/S VARSHA CONSTRUCTION, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.111/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Varsha Construction 2Nd Floor, 25-26, Millennium Plaza, Raipur (C.G.) Pan :Aaefv8399M ……""यथ" / Respondent

assessment in the case of the assessee which was earlier framed by the A.O vide his order passed u/s.143(3), dated 26.12.2009 was, thereafter, reopened u/s. 147 of the Act on the basis of the following “reasons to believe” : “During the relevant accounting period, it is found that : 1. Centering material worth Rs.2,35,000/- and Rs.2,80,000/- debited

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, KORBA, KORBA vs. M/S BUDHIA AUTO, MAIN ROAD

Accordingly, ground no. 1 of the appeal of revenue stands dismissed and the disallowance made by Ld

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 158/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2012-13)

reopened on the ground that the appellant had not paid VAT and service tax before due date. During the original assessment proceedings, the A.O vide questionnaire dated-27.09.2013 had specifically asked query regarding unpaid liabilities of Entry Tax, Professional tax, Service Tax, Income Tax TDS

M/S GOPAL RICE INDUSTRIES, ,DHAMTARI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 291/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Gopal Rice Industries Village- Sambalpur, Dhamtari (C.G.)-493 773 Pan : Aabfi4303F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

reopened on the basis of the following “reasons to believe”:- “05/02/2014 The assessee filed return of income on 29/03/2009 declaring total income of Rs.27,01,890/-. The case was scrutinized and assessment order u/s.143(3) of the Act was passed on 6/12/2010 determining total income of Rs.27,68,410/-. In the due course of further verification, it was found that

THE DY. CIT- 1,, DURG(CG) vs. M/S. RAVI SHREE NARAYAN TRANSPORT,, BHILAI(CG)

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

reopening the assessment. 8. The relevant facts are that in this case original assessments were completed u/s.143(3) of the Act. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer has initiated reassessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Act after receipt of verification report from ACIT (TDS

DY.C.I.T. 1, BHILAI(CG) vs. M/S RAVI SHREE NARAYAN TRANSPORT, BHILAI(CG)

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

reopening the assessment. 8. The relevant facts are that in this case original assessments were completed u/s.143(3) of the Act. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer has initiated reassessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Act after receipt of verification report from ACIT (TDS

DY.C.I.T. 1, BHILAI(CG) vs. M/S RAVI SHREE NARAYAN TRANSPORT, BHILAI(CG)

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

reopening the assessment. 8. The relevant facts are that in this case original assessments were completed u/s.143(3) of the Act. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer has initiated reassessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Act after receipt of verification report from ACIT (TDS

BHARAT BENEFICATION & POWER PVT. LTD., RAIGARH,RAIGARH vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 336/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

reopening assessment proceedings, as such information was there before him in the form of tax audit report in form 3CD. 12 Bharat Benefication & Power Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal 8.3 Third issue: On the issue of donation for Rs. 1,69,676/-, it was the submission that during the reassessment proceedings bills / vouchers

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

assessment order providing appeal effect to the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. 4. That in so far the appeal No.444/RPR/2025 for A.Y.2011-12, the assessee has come to know through the appeal effect order dated 13.06.2025 passed by the A.O with regard to the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. 5. In this regard

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

assessment order providing appeal effect to the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. 4. That in so far the appeal No.444/RPR/2025 for A.Y.2011-12, the assessee has come to know through the appeal effect order dated 13.06.2025 passed by the A.O with regard to the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. 5. In this regard

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

assessment order providing appeal effect to the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. 4. That in so far the appeal No.444/RPR/2025 for A.Y.2011-12, the assessee has come to know through the appeal effect order dated 13.06.2025 passed by the A.O with regard to the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. 5. In this regard

M/S FRIENDS CONSTRUCTION CO,JANJGIR-CHAMPA (C.G.) vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), BILASPUR(CG)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 83/Rpr/2016 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S. Friends Construction Co. Sabji Market, P.O. Akaltara, Dist.- Janjgir- Champa (Cg) Pin-495552 Pan : Aabff5381J .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Bilaspur (Cg) ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri G.S. Agrawal Revenue By : Shri D.K. Jain

TDS) violating the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Apart from the above the assessee had claimed depreciation @15% on centering material slab which was purchased on 3 A.Y.2007-08 12.03.2007 resulting in excess claim of depreciation of Rs.19,790/-. In the light of the above, the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income to the extent

MOHAMMED USMAN, BHILAI,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.180/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mohammed Usman C/25, Nandini Road, Power House, Bhilai-490 011, Dist. Durg Pan: Aafpu9292H

TDS), Raipur (C.G.), TAX Case No.17/2025, dated 24.02.2025 and (iv) 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 said delay of 58 days involved in the present appeal is condoned. 5. In this case, the assessee has filed both legal grounds as well

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BHILAI vs. MESERS STEELCO ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED, BHILAI

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.88/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

TDS was deducted at the prescribed rate but the same could not make the transaction sacrosanct. We find that total amount of commission was also drastically increased in the year under reference as compared to the previous year by the assessee company. Such abnormal facts are sufficient for the A.O to reach a conclusion that transactions of commission were

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. MESERS SHREE JAGDAMBA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 37 To 42/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15)

TDS and few others. The AO has not enquired and established that payments made by the assessee are not genuine. Purpose of section 40A(3) of the Act is to ensure that the payments which are not genuine are not allowed. The AO was also sent the set of account confirmation from all the recipients and his report was called

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. MESERS SHREE JAGDAMBA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 37 To 42/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15)

TDS and few others. The AO has not enquired and established that payments made by the assessee are not genuine. Purpose of section 40A(3) of the Act is to ensure that the payments which are not genuine are not allowed. The AO was also sent the set of account confirmation from all the recipients and his report was called

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. MESERS SHREE JAGDAMBA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 37 To 42/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15)

TDS and few others. The AO has not enquired and established that payments made by the assessee are not genuine. Purpose of section 40A(3) of the Act is to ensure that the payments which are not genuine are not allowed. The AO was also sent the set of account confirmation from all the recipients and his report was called

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. MESERS SHREE JAGDAMBA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 37 To 42/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15)

TDS and few others. The AO has not enquired and established that payments made by the assessee are not genuine. Purpose of section 40A(3) of the Act is to ensure that the payments which are not genuine are not allowed. The AO was also sent the set of account confirmation from all the recipients and his report was called

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. MESERS SHREE JAGDAMBA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 37 To 42/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15)

TDS and few others. The AO has not enquired and established that payments made by the assessee are not genuine. Purpose of section 40A(3) of the Act is to ensure that the payments which are not genuine are not allowed. The AO was also sent the set of account confirmation from all the recipients and his report was called

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. MESERS SHREE JAGDAMBA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 37 To 42/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15)

TDS and few others. The AO has not enquired and established that payments made by the assessee are not genuine. Purpose of section 40A(3) of the Act is to ensure that the payments which are not genuine are not allowed. The AO was also sent the set of account confirmation from all the recipients and his report was called