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

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

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 ITA Nos.226 to 231/RPR/2023 1998, irrespective of the date

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

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 ITA Nos.226 to 231/RPR/2023 1998, irrespective of the date

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

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 ITA Nos.226 to 231/RPR/2023 1998, irrespective of the date

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

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 ITA Nos.226 to 231/RPR/2023 1998, irrespective of the date

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

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 ITA Nos.226 to 231/RPR/2023 1998, irrespective of the date

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

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 ITA Nos.226 to 231/RPR/2023 1998, irrespective of the date

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

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, we condone the delay of 30 days involved in the present appeal and the matter is heard on merits. 4. That the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had dismissed

MANISH KUMAR JAIN, RAJNANDGAON,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RAJNANDGAON, RAJNANDGAON

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.516, 517 & 518/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Manish Kumar Jain C/O. Maa Padmavati Rice Industries, Ramadhin Marg, Rajnandgaon-491 441 Pan: Adnpj1476F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant

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, the said delay of 29 days involved in the captioned appeals is condoned…..” 3. At the time of hearing, parties herein conceded that the facts, circumstances

MANISH KUMAR JAIN, RAJNANDGAON,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RAJNANDGAON, RAJNANDGAON

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.516, 517 & 518/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Manish Kumar Jain C/O. Maa Padmavati Rice Industries, Ramadhin Marg, Rajnandgaon-491 441 Pan: Adnpj1476F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant

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, the said delay of 29 days involved in the captioned appeals is condoned…..” 3. At the time of hearing, parties herein conceded that the facts, circumstances

MANISH KUMAR JAIN, RAJNANDGOAN,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RAJNANDGAON, RAJNANDGAON

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.516, 517 & 518/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Manish Kumar Jain C/O. Maa Padmavati Rice Industries, Ramadhin Marg, Rajnandgaon-491 441 Pan: Adnpj1476F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant

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, the said delay of 29 days involved in the captioned appeals is condoned…..” 3. At the time of hearing, parties herein conceded that the facts, circumstances

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

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

249 (SC). Also, the “Full bench” of the 30 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh V. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Bengaluru (2021) 280 Taxman 334 (Bombay), had observed that where the assessment order clearly records a satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or other

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED,BILASPUR vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

249 (SC). Also, the “Full bench” of the 30 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh V. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Bengaluru (2021) 280 Taxman 334 (Bombay), had observed that where the assessment order clearly records a satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or other

SOUTH EASTERN COAL FIELDS LTD.,,BILASPUR(CG) vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

249 (SC). Also, the “Full bench” of the 30 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh V. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Bengaluru (2021) 280 Taxman 334 (Bombay), had observed that where the assessment order clearly records a satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or other

THE DY. CIT- CIR.-1(1),, BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFILDS LTD.,, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

249 (SC). Also, the “Full bench” of the 30 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh V. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Bengaluru (2021) 280 Taxman 334 (Bombay), had observed that where the assessment order clearly records a satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or other

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD,BILASPUR(CG) vs. DY.. C.I.T.-1(1), BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

249 (SC). Also, the “Full bench” of the 30 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh V. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Bengaluru (2021) 280 Taxman 334 (Bombay), had observed that where the assessment order clearly records a satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or other

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

249 (SC). Also, the “Full bench” of the 30 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh V. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Bengaluru (2021) 280 Taxman 334 (Bombay), had observed that where the assessment order clearly records a satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or other

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

249 (SC). Also, the “Full bench” of the 30 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh V. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Bengaluru (2021) 280 Taxman 334 (Bombay), had observed that where the assessment order clearly records a satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or other