DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. AGRAWAL GLOBAL INFRATECH PVT. LTD., RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 331/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

section 144B, passed by Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Centre, Delhi, dated 16.06.2021. 2 DCIT-1(1), Raipur vs Agrawal Global Infratech Pvt. Ltd. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the department are as under: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition

ANISH VISHNOI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.764/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Anish Vishnoi New Bus Stand Baloda Bazar, Baloda Bazar S.O., Raipur (C.G.)-493 332 Pan: Aeapv0087J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

section 147 r.w.s. 144B, even though the Assessing Officer who initiated the proceedings u/s 148 had no valid jurisdiction to do so. The assumption of jurisdiction itself being void ab initio, the entire reassessment proceedings stand vitiated and the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the validity of the reassessment

NIXA FINCAP PVT. LTD., MUMBAI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.170/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Nixa Fincap Private Limited (Formerly Known As Xander Finance Private Limited) Unit No.2503, 25Th Floor, One Lodha Place, Senapati Bapat Marg, Delisle Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 (Maharashtra) Pan: Aaacc9304N ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

section 250 of the Act. 2.2. The Appellant prays that the Learned AO be directed to allow deduction of Rs.6,71,222 as the said amount was paid within the due date. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, omit or substitute any or all of the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1) BILASPUR, BILASPUR vs. RAJSWAY DIRECT TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED, BILASPUR, BILASPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 257/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Rajsway Direct Trading Private Limited, 1154, Ward No.12, Minimata Nagar, Talapara, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan : Aahcr9787K

TDS was already deducted on all such payments and Form 26Q has been uploaded in time. Hence, the amount was allowable as an expense.” 8. We have given thoughtful consideration and are unable to comprehend the very basis on which the unsubstantiated claim for deduction of commission expenditure of Rs.3.87 crore (supra) had been vacated by the CIT(Appeals). Admittedly

VEER PROJECTS,RAIPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 654/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), dated 18.08.2025 for the Assessment Year 2018-19, which has been arises from the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, passed by Assessment Unit, National E- Assessment Centre, Delhi, dated 30.04.2021 (in short “Ld. AO”). 2 Veer Projects Vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur

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

MANOJ KUMAR SAHU, DURG,DURG vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.475/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Manoj Kumar Sahu 151, Village: Rajpur, Tehsil: Dhamdha, Dist. Durg-491 331 (C.G.) Pan: Eomps2921J .......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, 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. 3. Coming to the merits of the case, parties herein submitted that in the quantum appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.474/RPR/2025 for A.Y.2013-14, relief

MADANLAL LODHA,RAIPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: Ita 32/Rpr/2022 (Assessment Years:2017-18) Madanlal Lodha, V Pr. Commissioner Of Income Ta, C/O M/S Prakash Trading Comp. S Raipur-(I) Shop No. 109 & 110, Textile Market, Pandri, Raipur, (C.G.) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By : Shri R.B. Doshi, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By : Shri S.K. Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 03-08-2023 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20-10-2023

TDS amount (page no. 16 & 17). The above compensation receipt was exempt u/s 96 of ‘Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013’, I place reliance on Circular No. 36/2016 (F. No. 225/88/2016-ITA.II) dated 25th October 2016 issued by CBDT in this regard. Kindly allow some time to furnish further justification in above matter

HARISH PANDEY, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 503/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

144B of the Act, dated 17.03.2023. 2 Harish Pandey vs ACIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur 2. The grounds of grounds of appeal raised by the assessee reads as under: 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte without providing proper

VINAY KUMAR JAISWAL,SURAJPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, AMBIKAPUR, AMBIKAPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 363/Rpr/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

144B of the IT Act, dated 29.04.2021. 2 Vinay Kumar Jaiswal vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Ambikapur 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in the present appeal are culled out as under: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld CIT(A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs.29