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) ..

1 held that the purpose of deduction under section 801A, the gross total income has to be computed inter alia, by deducting the deduction allowable under section 30 to 430. 13.6.3. The above judgements make clear that all expenses which are not relating to eligible business and which are not allowable under section 30 to 430 of the Income

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

8TH BATALIAN INDIA RESERVE CAF,RAJNANDGAON vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS, Ghaziabad ITA Nos. 184 to 191/RPR/2022 1. The power to make an adjustment by disallowing a deduction or relief claimed in the return can be invoked only when the claim is prima facie inadmissible Bank of America v DCIT 200 ITR 739). Prima facie in this sub-section means clear or self-evident, meaning thereby that the claim must

8TH BATALIAN INDIA RESERVE CAF,RAJNANDGAON vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS, Ghaziabad ITA Nos. 184 to 191/RPR/2022 1. The power to make an adjustment by disallowing a deduction or relief claimed in the return can be invoked only when the claim is prima facie inadmissible Bank of America v DCIT 200 ITR 739). Prima facie in this sub-section means clear or self-evident, meaning thereby that the claim must

8TH BATALIAN INDIA RESERVE CAF,RAJNANDGAON vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS, Ghaziabad ITA Nos. 184 to 191/RPR/2022 1. The power to make an adjustment by disallowing a deduction or relief claimed in the return can be invoked only when the claim is prima facie inadmissible Bank of America v DCIT 200 ITR 739). Prima facie in this sub-section means clear or self-evident, meaning thereby that the claim must

8TH BATALIAN INDIA RESERVE CAF,RAJNANDGAON vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS, Ghaziabad ITA Nos. 184 to 191/RPR/2022 1. The power to make an adjustment by disallowing a deduction or relief claimed in the return can be invoked only when the claim is prima facie inadmissible Bank of America v DCIT 200 ITR 739). Prima facie in this sub-section means clear or self-evident, meaning thereby that the claim must

8TH BATALIAN INDIA RESERVE CAF,RAJNANDGAON vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS, Ghaziabad ITA Nos. 184 to 191/RPR/2022 1. The power to make an adjustment by disallowing a deduction or relief claimed in the return can be invoked only when the claim is prima facie inadmissible Bank of America v DCIT 200 ITR 739). Prima facie in this sub-section means clear or self-evident, meaning thereby that the claim must

8TH BATALIAN INDIA RESERVE CAF,RAJNANDGAON vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS, Ghaziabad ITA Nos. 184 to 191/RPR/2022 1. The power to make an adjustment by disallowing a deduction or relief claimed in the return can be invoked only when the claim is prima facie inadmissible Bank of America v DCIT 200 ITR 739). Prima facie in this sub-section means clear or self-evident, meaning thereby that the claim must

8TH BATALIAN INDIA RESERVE CAF,RAJNANDGAON vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS, Ghaziabad ITA Nos. 184 to 191/RPR/2022 1. The power to make an adjustment by disallowing a deduction or relief claimed in the return can be invoked only when the claim is prima facie inadmissible Bank of America v DCIT 200 ITR 739). Prima facie in this sub-section means clear or self-evident, meaning thereby that the claim must

8TH BATALIAN INDIA RESERVE CAF,RAJNANDGAON vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS, Ghaziabad ITA Nos. 184 to 191/RPR/2022 1. The power to make an adjustment by disallowing a deduction or relief claimed in the return can be invoked only when the claim is prima facie inadmissible Bank of America v DCIT 200 ITR 739). Prima facie in this sub-section means clear or self-evident, meaning thereby that the claim must

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

1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 29/08/2019, wherein a questioner is enclosed as annexure to decide notice and question no. 18 of questioner was pertaining to the issue raised by the Ld. PCIT for invoking the provisions of revisionary proceedings u/s 263. The specific question asked under question no. 18 was “details of compensation received on compulsory acquisition

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,”

TDS while making or crediting payment aggregating to Rs 30,000/- and above. Thus in accordance with provision of section 194J read with section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 1961, the amount of Rs. 30,000/-(Rs 1,00,000*30%) deserve to be disallowed and needed to have been added back as income of the assessee. 5. Further

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

GRAMIN SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,DHAMTARI(C.G) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI(C.G)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

1 to 55 of additional documentary evidence that was placed on our record. By drawing support from compilation of paddy purchase from its members, i.e. Page 1A to 255 of the additional documentary evidences filed before us, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that only a small fraction of the paddy procurement was carried out by the assessee society

GRAMIN SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,DHAMTARI(C.G) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI(C.G)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

1 to 55 of additional documentary evidence that was placed on our record. By drawing support from compilation of paddy purchase from its members, i.e. Page 1A to 255 of the additional documentary evidences filed before us, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that only a small fraction of the paddy procurement was carried out by the assessee society

GRAMIN SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,DHAMTARI(C.G) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI(C.G)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

1 to 55 of additional documentary evidence that was placed on our record. By drawing support from compilation of paddy purchase from its members, i.e. Page 1A to 255 of the additional documentary evidences filed before us, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that only a small fraction of the paddy procurement was carried out by the assessee society

THE GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3),RAIPUR, RAIPUR (CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

1 to 55 of additional documentary evidence that was placed on our record. By drawing support from compilation of paddy purchase from its members, i.e. Page 1A to 255 of the additional documentary evidences filed before us, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that only a small fraction of the paddy procurement was carried out by the assessee society

GRAMIN SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,DHAMTARI(C.G) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI(C.G)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

1 to 55 of additional documentary evidence that was placed on our record. By drawing support from compilation of paddy purchase from its members, i.e. Page 1A to 255 of the additional documentary evidences filed before us, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that only a small fraction of the paddy procurement was carried out by the assessee society