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

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

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

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

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

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)

TDS, cash withdrawals etc. Accordingly the case of assessee has been picked up for reassessment u/s 148 of the Act. Assessee was informed about the proceedings through various notices u/s 148, 142(1) and reminders-8 times, 144, Letter etc. but even after 11 opportunities the assessee had not responded. Accordingly, the assessment was completed on best judgment basis following

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

148 of the Act, dated 30.01.2015, determining the income of the assessee at Rs.35,61,680/- after, inter alia, making the following additions/disallowances: Sr. No. Particulars Amount 1. Disallowance of the assessee’s claim Rs.5,15,000/- for deduction of ‘centering materials’ 2. Disallowance of the assessee’s claim Rs.13,89,600/- for deduction of supervision charges paid

ANAND KUMAR BANSAL,BILASPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR -1, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.133/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Anand Kumar Bansal Madhya Nagari Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Ahnpb0374N

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, we are inclined to condone the delay of 299 days. We order accordingly. 4. At the time of hearing, when the matter was call up for hearing

MESERS METEX ENGINEERS,BHILAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHILAI

In the result Ground No 8 of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.238/Rpr/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-2016) M/S Metex Engineers, Vs Ito, Ward-1(2), Bhilai Shop No.10-11, Ganesh Complex, Shakti Vihar, Risali Bhilai, Durg Pan No. :Aawfm 8852 G & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.247/Rpr/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Ito, Ward-1(2), Bhilai Vs M/S Metex Engineers, Shop No.10-11, Ganesh Complex, Shakti Vihar, Risali Bhilai, Durg Pan No. :Aawfm 8852 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.B.Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V.K.Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 24/04/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

TDS PAN No. Commission No. Party Commission Income Tax Deducted amount paid return shown in computation M/s. AVN Yes 40350 AKRPN4794M Yes ITR & Steel Tech 1 400,000.00 Computation Prop. Vivek submitted. KJ. Nigam M/s. Swarz Yes Below AACPZ6674M Enterprises Do Limit 2 18,500.00 (Prop. Sujit Zemse) V.K. Do- Yes Below CGLPS4768Q 3 Shrivastava 1,648.00 — limit Aruna Lata