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

SUN AND SUN INFRAMETRIC PVT. LTD.,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.22/Rpr/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17)

263 is thus rendered illusory and merely an empty formality resulting in miscarriage of justice in contravention of expresses intendment of law. 13. Looking from any angle, the directions towards verification of loan transactions are unsustainable in law and deserve to be quashed. The directions no. 1-4 are thus set aside. 14. Point no.5 of the directions concern applicability

BHARAT BENEFICATION & POWER PVT. LTD., RAIGARH,RAIGARH vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 336/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

section 263, the short synopsis submitted before us is extracted hereunder for the sake of clarity: Bharat Benefication & Power Pvt. Ltd., Raigarh AY 2018/19 Submission of assessee 1. Rs. 70 lakh Sky Alloys & Power Pvt. Ltd. i) Impugned assessment reopened on the issue of alleged bogus purchases from two parties. ii) In the reopened assessment, as per the settled

MADANLAL LODHA,RAIPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: Ita 32/Rpr/2022 (Assessment Years:2017-18) Madanlal Lodha, V Pr. Commissioner Of Income Ta, C/O M/S Prakash Trading Comp. S Raipur-(I) Shop No. 109 & 110, Textile Market, Pandri, Raipur, (C.G.) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By : Shri R.B. Doshi, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By : Shri S.K. Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 03-08-2023 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20-10-2023

section 68 of the Act and issue 3 regarding compensation of Rs. 71,75,902/- claimed as exemption u/s 96 of the RFCTLARR Act, were queried and compliance/ explanations were sought from the assessee. Necessary response was furnished by the assessee. However, on perusal of the response of the assessee on the queries raised, Ld. PCIT has observed that

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

Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bilaspur, for Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under: “1. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the proceeding u/s 263 are illegal and bad in law, as all the issues mentioned in the aforesaid order were

RAJENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.130/Rpr/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Year: 2018-19 Rajendra Kumar Agrawal Vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Gandhi Chowk Tax, Raipur-1 Neora, Raipur (C.G.) 493114 Pan No. Acipa 5919L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारितीती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Praveen Goyel, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/08/2023 घोषणाणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24 /08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Dated 16.03.2023 U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “ 1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Order Passed By Id. Pr. Cit-1, Raipur U'S 263 Of The Act Dated 16/03/2023 Is Illegal & Void- Ab-Initio, 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit-1. Raipur Failed To Demonstrate That How The Order Passed By The Ao Is Erroneous Which Caused Prejudice To The Revenue. 3. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit-1. Raipur Has Stated In The Order That No Adverse Inference Is Drawn On The Issues Raised In Notice U/S 263, However, Set Aside The Proceedings Initiated U/S 263 Of The Act, Hence, The Same Is Contradictory & Incorrect. 4. The Appellant Craves To Add, Alter Or Delete Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal During The Course Of Appellate Proceedings,”

section 263 for initiation of revisionary proceedings. Notice u/s 263 of the Act was issued on 03.05.2023 alleging that the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) dated 22.05.2021 is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue on the following grounds: “2. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny

M/S SWASTIK ESTATE, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.178/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Swastik Estates V The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Office No.301 To 304, 3Rd Floor, S Raipur-1 Subham Corporate, Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Adkfs8832R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S. K. Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R

TDS has indeed been done in the same previous year, but has been paid in the Government account after the due date of filing of return. Here, it is worthwhile to mention that the notice for the hearing by a mistake mentioned the Section 43B in place of Section 40(a)(ia). However, the assessee has filed no reply

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1) ), RAIPUR vs. SHRI SANTOSH JAIN, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteिनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle 3(1), Shri Santosh Jain Raipur Vs Prop. M/S. Arihant Mining Co., Raipur. Pan: Acmpj5971B Appellant Respondent Applicant By None Respondent By Shrig.N. Singh Date Of Hearing 02/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Isdirected Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-I, Raipur, Dated 22.11.2019For Assessment Year 2009-10 Emanating From The Assessment Order Dated 11.02.2015 Passed Under Section 143(3)R.W.S. 263Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Also Called As ‘The Act’). The Revenue Has Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal: “1. Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Not Erred In Law & In Fact Byadjudicating The Issue Of Retrospective Applicability Of The Secondproviso To Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The I. T. Act, Which Was Not Aground Of Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A)? 2. Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Not Erred In Law & In Facts By Ignoringthe Fact That The Order Of The Ao Was Erroneous & Prejudicial Tothe Interest Of Revenue In The Light Of The Fact The Ao Did Notexamine The Issue Of Non Deduction Of Tax At Source Andapplicability Of Provision U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of The I. T. Act?

TDS was not deducted, the Assessing Officer made disallowance. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) in paras 6 and 7 has observed as under: “6…. It was further brought to my notice that the appellant had preferred an appealagainst the order u/s 263 before the ITAT, Raipur which

M/S HARDAYAL SINGH PATEL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1,, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 189/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Hardayal Singh Patel 43, Golden Homes, Vip Estate, Khamardih (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aabfh5997A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1 ……""यथ" / Respondent

section 263 of the Act is unsustainable as power to revise can be invoked in the case of no NIL enquiry and not in the case of inadequate enquiry. The order made by the Ld. Pr.CIT u/s 263 of the Act, is illegal, invalid, void and bad in law and is liable to be quashed. 5. The appellant reserves

BRAJESH KHANDELWAL,DHAMTARI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, -I, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 117/Rpr/2019) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15)

section 263 of the Act on the ground that the Assessment Order under revision is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 3. Briefly stated, the assessee is engaged in the business of flour and rice mill in proprietary concern M/s. Khandelwal Agro, Dhamtari (CG). For the A.Y. 2014-15 in question, the assessee filed return

MESERS VISHAL AUTOMOBILE,BILASPUR vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BILASPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhry

section 263 of the Act on the ground that the Assessment Order under revision is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 3. Briefly stated, the assessee is engaged in selling of Motor Bikes of Honda Company and Kamaz Trucks. The return of income filed by the assessee for AY 2014-15 declaring total income at Rs.22

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1) ), RAIPUR vs. SHRI SANTOSH JAIN, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is Dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. Ita No.43/Rpr/2020 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Circle 3(1), Shri Santosh Jain Raipur Vs Prop. M/S. Arihant Mining Co., Raipur. Pan: Acmpj 5971 B Appellant/Revenue Respondent /Assessee Applicant By None Respondent By Shri G.N. Singh Date Of Hearing 02/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-I, Raipur, Dated 22.11.2019For Assessment Year 2008-09Emanating From The Assessment Order Dated 29.09.2015 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Also Called As ‘The Act’). The Revenue Has Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal: “1. Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Not Erred In Law & In Fact By Adjudicating The Issue Of Retrospective Applicability Of The Second Proviso To Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The I. T. Act, Which Was Not Aground Of Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A)? 2. Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Not Erred In Law & In Facts By Ignoring The Fact That The Order Of The Ao Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue In The Light Of The Fact The Ao Did Not Examine The Issue Of Non Deduction Of Tax At Source & Applicability Of Provision U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of The I. T. Act?

Section 263 is to correct an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of revenue as the department has no right to file an appeal against the order of Assessing Officer? 5. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) not erred in law and in facts by ignoring the decision of Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in the case of CITV/s. Daga Entrade

M/S BHARAT AGRO INDUSTRIES, ,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 263/Rpr/2017) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बनाम/ M/S. Bharat Agro Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Raipur Industries Vs. Near Bajrang Power, Rajiv Gandhi Ward, Urla Sarora Road, Urla Industrial Area, Raipur (C.G.) "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahfb8665M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

TDS . The above expenses are not allowable as per the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. However, you have not disallowed such expenses u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act and the AO has not examined and verified this issue properly. 3. In view of the above lapses on the part of the AO such as lack

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