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

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)

TDS 5,059 Difference in income as per 26AS and P&L Rs. 4516001 Total Rs. 1,50,16,117 Disallowances as discussed above u/s 68 of the Act and taxable at special Rate u/s 115BBE 1. Unsecured Loan 2,63,43,671 1. Sundry Creditors 2,56,47,012 Total assessed Income Rs.6,70,06,800 4. Aggrieved with

NIKITA KINGRANI, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-TDS WARD, BHILAI, DURG

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section provides as follows: - Form of appeal and limitation. "249. (1) Every appeal under this Chapter shall be in the prescribed form 61-and shall be verified in the prescribed manner 7[and shall, in case of an appeal made to the Commissioner (Appeals) on or after the 1st day of October, 4 Nikita Kingrani Vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

NIKITA KINGRANI, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-TDS WARD, BHILAI, DURG

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section provides as follows: - Form of appeal and limitation. "249. (1) Every appeal under this Chapter shall be in the prescribed form 61-and shall be verified in the prescribed manner 7[and shall, in case of an appeal made to the Commissioner (Appeals) on or after the 1st day of October, 4 Nikita Kingrani Vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

NIKITA KINGRANI, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-TDS WARD, BHILAI, DURG

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section provides as follows: - Form of appeal and limitation. "249. (1) Every appeal under this Chapter shall be in the prescribed form 61-and shall be verified in the prescribed manner 7[and shall, in case of an appeal made to the Commissioner (Appeals) on or after the 1st day of October, 4 Nikita Kingrani Vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

NIKITA KINGRANI, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-TDS WARD, BHILAI, DURG

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section provides as follows: - Form of appeal and limitation. "249. (1) Every appeal under this Chapter shall be in the prescribed form 61-and shall be verified in the prescribed manner 7[and shall, in case of an appeal made to the Commissioner (Appeals) on or after the 1st day of October, 4 Nikita Kingrani Vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

NIKITA KINGRANI, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-TDS WARD, BHILAI, DURG

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section provides as follows: - Form of appeal and limitation. "249. (1) Every appeal under this Chapter shall be in the prescribed form 61-and shall be verified in the prescribed manner 7[and shall, in case of an appeal made to the Commissioner (Appeals) on or after the 1st day of October, 4 Nikita Kingrani Vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

NIKITA KINGRANI, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-TDS WARD, BHILAI, DURG

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section provides as follows: - Form of appeal and limitation. "249. (1) Every appeal under this Chapter shall be in the prescribed form 61-and shall be verified in the prescribed manner 7[and shall, in case of an appeal made to the Commissioner (Appeals) on or after the 1st day of October, 4 Nikita Kingrani Vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

M/S SMS SHIVNATH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,DURG(CG) vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.87/Rpr/2017 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Acit-2(1), Bhilai Vs M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.,Toll Plaza, Near Dhamdhanaka, Durg. Pan No. :Aadcs 2258 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.107/Rpr/2016 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Vs Pr.Cit-2, Raipur Pvt Ltd.,Toll Plaza, Near Dhamdhanaka, Durg. Pan No. :Aadcs 2258 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

TDS under law such disallowance would ultimately increase assessee‟s profits from business of developing housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would qualify for deduction u/s. 80IE of the Act would qualify for deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act. This view was taken by the courts

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-2(1)BHILAI, BHILAI(CG) vs. M/S SMS SHIVNATH INFRASSTRUCTURE PVT LTD., DURG, DURG(CG)

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.87/Rpr/2017 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Acit-2(1), Bhilai Vs M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.,Toll Plaza, Near Dhamdhanaka, Durg. Pan No. :Aadcs 2258 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.107/Rpr/2016 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Vs Pr.Cit-2, Raipur Pvt Ltd.,Toll Plaza, Near Dhamdhanaka, Durg. Pan No. :Aadcs 2258 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

TDS under law such disallowance would ultimately increase assessee‟s profits from business of developing housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would qualify for deduction u/s. 80IE of the Act would qualify for deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act. This view was taken by the courts

RAJESH KUMAR SINGHANIA HUF,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.848/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Rajesh Kumar Singhania Huf B-22/12, Sector-3, Udaya Society, Tatibandh, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aadhr1548F

2. At the very outset, it is noted that the appeal is time barred by 30 days, for which, the assessee had filed condonation application a/w. affidavit dated 31.12.2025. The relevant part of the said affidavit is extracted as follows: 3 Rajesh Kumar Singhania HUF Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) 4 Rajesh Kumar Singhania HUF Vs. ITO, Ward

DISTRICT PROJECT LIVELIHOOD COLLEGE SOCIETY,GARIYABANDH(CG) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 271, 272 & 273/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19)

2) was pending before the tribunal cannot justify the delay in filing of appeal before the High Court. The appellant was required to furnish the sufficient cause together with the evidence for the claim made. This has not been done. Therefore, it held that the reasons given for condonation of delay does not tantamount to sufficient cause within the meaning

DISTRICT PROJECT LIVELIHOOD COLLEGE SOCIETY,GARIYABANDH (C.G) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),RAIPUR, AYKAR BHAWAN

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 271, 272 & 273/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19)

2) was pending before the tribunal cannot justify the delay in filing of appeal before the High Court. The appellant was required to furnish the sufficient cause together with the evidence for the claim made. This has not been done. Therefore, it held that the reasons given for condonation of delay does not tantamount to sufficient cause within the meaning

DISTRICT PROJECT LIVELIHOOD COLLEGE SOCIETY,GARIYABANDH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 271, 272 & 273/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19)

2) was pending before the tribunal cannot justify the delay in filing of appeal before the High Court. The appellant was required to furnish the sufficient cause together with the evidence for the claim made. This has not been done. Therefore, it held that the reasons given for condonation of delay does not tantamount to sufficient cause within the meaning