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

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

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