SHRI SHRI MITHILESH KUMAR,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1), RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

section 148 was issued on 10/12/2012 and 14/12/2012. The assessment was Mithilesh Kumar reopened on recording reasons that assessee in its profit and loss account has shown purchase of Rs. 5.5 Crores, but as per details of TDS

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-RANGE-1,, BILASPUR vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED,, BILASPUR

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury,Jm Sl.

148 of the Act. 1(c) That on the facts and in tire circumstances of the case, the CIT(Appeals) erred in upholding tire action of the Assessing officer in making addition/ disallowances on the other issues which were not the subject matter for the initiation of reassessment proceedings. 2(a) That on the facts and circumstances of the case

JOINT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE -I, BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD, BILASPUR(CG)

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury,Jm Sl.

148 of the Act. 1(c) That on the facts and in tire circumstances of the case, the CIT(Appeals) erred in upholding tire action of the Assessing officer in making addition/ disallowances on the other issues which were not the subject matter for the initiation of reassessment proceedings. 2(a) That on the facts and circumstances of the case

DOLPHIN PROMOTERS AND BUILDERS,RAIPUR vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 58/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2011-12)

148 for the making of the return or by the notice under the first proviso to section 115WF or under the first proviso to section 144 to show cause why the assessment should not be completed to the best of the judgment of the Assessing Officer, whichever is earlier; (c) where an action has been taken under section

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.)

148]; (f) the amount of deemed total income reassessed as per the provisions of section 115JB or section 115JC, as the case may be, is greater than the deemed total income assessed or reassessed immediately before such reassessment; (g) the income assessed or reassessed has the effect of reducing the loss or converting such loss into income. …………………………… (9) The cases

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.)

148]; (f) the amount of deemed total income reassessed as per the provisions of section 115JB or section 115JC, as the case may be, is greater than the deemed total income assessed or reassessed immediately before such reassessment; (g) the income assessed or reassessed has the effect of reducing the loss or converting such loss into income. …………………………… (9) The cases

RAMAN VASU THACHISARIL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM vs. ITO, WARD- JAGDALPUR, JAGDALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.91/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Raman Vasu Thachisaril Ramanalayam Clappana, Kollam, Amrithapuri S.O-690 546 Kerala, India Pan: Adopt0795N

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, I hereby condone the delay of 396 days and proceed to hear the matter on merits. 4. The contention in law as assailed by the Ld. Counsel

SURYA LAND DEVELOPERS, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(4), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Judicial Ember

TDS, the disallowance ought to have been restricted to Rs.94,956/- (i.e. 30% of Rs.3,16,520/- ). Hence, the disallowance of the entire amount of Rs.3,16,520/- is bad in law and is liable to be deleted or at least reduced to Rs.94,956/- i.e. 30% of the payment. 6. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts

SHREE SHYAM SALES CORPORATION,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1(2), RAIPUR. (C.G.), RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 188/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

TDS, the assessee furnished details of sales/purchases made by them but transportation details was not submitted and stated that no transportation expenses have been borne by the firm, the same have been borne by the seller/purchasers themselves. The copy of annual return of GST was also not filed during assessment proceedings and copy of GSTR2A was not furnished

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

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

M/S SWARAJ BUILDERS,KORBA(CG) vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BILASPUR(CG)

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

TDS, Bilaspur , on 3/5/2010, and the proof of submission had been submitted before the learned A.O during the Re-assessment proceeding, after considering the same and being satisfied Learned A.O drop the re- 2 assessment proceeding on that. On the same issue proceeding u/s 263 is beyond the jurisdiction learned Pr. CIT and the order so passed

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

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)

section 147 r.w.s. 148, 148A, 149, 151 and 151A of the Act. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in upholding order of learned Assessing Officer making addition of Rs.87,07,200/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and charging the same

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

section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore, the Assessment order dated 28.03.2013 be annulled.” 3. The brief facts in this case are that the original assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) on 19.11.2009 on total income of Rs.1,22,148/- as against returned income of Rs.47

KUSHAL PRASAD SAHU, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 14 & 15/Rpr/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2012-13)

section 147 of the Act. Notice u/s 148 was issued on 26.03.2018 and as per Ld. AO, the same is duly served upon the assessee. Further notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 13.10.2018 along with questionnaire was issues to the assessee, however there was no response by the assessee, accordingly, show cause notice stating that “why your assessment

KUSHAL PRASAD SAHU, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 14 & 15/Rpr/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2012-13)

section 147 of the Act. Notice u/s 148 was issued on 26.03.2018 and as per Ld. AO, the same is duly served upon the assessee. Further notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 13.10.2018 along with questionnaire was issues to the assessee, however there was no response by the assessee, accordingly, show cause notice stating that “why your assessment