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

NEELAM MANDHANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.303/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Neelam Mandhani D-27, Shailendra Nagar, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Bgkpm2502A ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

section 115BBE of I.T. Act, 1961. Penalty u/s.271AAC of the I.T. Act is initiated separately. Subject to the above discussion the income of the assessee is computed as under:- Income as return of Income : Rs.Nil Add Unexplained investment as discussed: Rs.2,93,14,320/- Above Total Taxable Income : Rs.2,93,14,320/- 3. That in view of the assessment order

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)

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act stating that the appellant has not made TDS from the payments. During the survey proceedings certain tally accounts were found from assessee’s computers and in the tally account details of payments of various parties were found which has been treated by the AO as cash payment. The material relied upon

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)

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act stating that the appellant has not made TDS from the payments. During the survey proceedings certain tally accounts were found from assessee’s computers and in the tally account details of payments of various parties were found which has been treated by the AO as cash payment. The material relied upon

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)

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act stating that the appellant has not made TDS from the payments. During the survey proceedings certain tally accounts were found from assessee’s computers and in the tally account details of payments of various parties were found which has been treated by the AO as cash payment. The material relied upon

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)

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act stating that the appellant has not made TDS from the payments. During the survey proceedings certain tally accounts were found from assessee’s computers and in the tally account details of payments of various parties were found which has been treated by the AO as cash payment. The material relied upon

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)

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act stating that the appellant has not made TDS from the payments. During the survey proceedings certain tally accounts were found from assessee’s computers and in the tally account details of payments of various parties were found which has been treated by the AO as cash payment. The material relied upon

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)

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act stating that the appellant has not made TDS from the payments. During the survey proceedings certain tally accounts were found from assessee’s computers and in the tally account details of payments of various parties were found which has been treated by the AO as cash payment. The material relied upon

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , RAIPUR vs. GRAND MOTORS, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Grand Motors, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Lodhi Para Chowk, Pandri, Raipur Raipur, 492001, Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh, 492001 Pan: Aagfg8524P

section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the decision of Ld. Addl/JCIT (A)-1, Surat was justified in deleting the addition made by the OCIT CPC to the tune of Rs.3,05,92,653/- by holding that unpaid VAT could have been disallowed

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1) BILASPUR, BILASPUR vs. RAJSWAY DIRECT TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED, BILASPUR, BILASPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 257/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Rajsway Direct Trading Private Limited, 1154, Ward No.12, Minimata Nagar, Talapara, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan : Aahcr9787K

87,55,159/-. 4 ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur Vs. Rajsway Direct Trading Private Limited, 5. Aggrieved the assessee company carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). Observing, that the assessee company had demonstrated that tax was deducted at source (TDS) on the commission payment and the TDS return in Form 26Q had been uploaded in time

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT, CHAMPAJHAR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

section which kindly be allowed. 2. That under the facts and the law, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in treating the surplus of PDS business amounting to Rs.22,649/- 3 Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit ITA Nos. 87 to 89 / RPR/2023 without allowing proportionate expenses of Rs.1,43,930/- as ineligible deduction u/s.80P(2). Prayed that the exemption

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI (MARYADIT), GAURBHAT,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

section which kindly be allowed. 2. That under the facts and the law, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in treating the surplus of PDS business amounting to Rs.22,649/- 3 Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit ITA Nos. 87 to 89 / RPR/2023 without allowing proportionate expenses of Rs.1,43,930/- as ineligible deduction u/s.80P(2). Prayed that the exemption

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKRI SAMITI MARYADIT, DHARSIWA,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

section which kindly be allowed. 2. That under the facts and the law, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in treating the surplus of PDS business amounting to Rs.22,649/- 3 Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit ITA Nos. 87 to 89 / RPR/2023 without allowing proportionate expenses of Rs.1,43,930/- as ineligible deduction u/s.80P(2). Prayed that the exemption

SHRI AMIT KUMAR SHIVHARE,KOREA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(3), BILASPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No. 198/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Amit Kumar Shivhare, Prop. M/S. Amit Infotech, Main Chowk, Baikunthpur, P.O. Baikunthpur, Dist. Korea (C.G.) Pan : Bdzps8815C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-2(3), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By :Shri G.S. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By :Shri G. N Singh, Dr

TDS), Chandigarh (2019) 179 ITD 207 (Chandigarh), had taken a similar view that tax withholding provisions under section 194H would not be applicable to discounts extended to pre-paid SIM distributors on transfer of pre-paid SIM cards/talk time. 7. In the backdrop of our aforesaid observations, we concur with the claim of the Ld. AR that now when

THE ACIT- 1(1),, RAIPUR (CG) vs. M/S. AATHARVA INFRASTRUCTURE,, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-2011

87,89,605/- mainly on account of following reasons: a) The appellant deliberately delayed furnishing of complete postal address of the subcontractors so as to defy any enquiry; b) The appellant did not produce the sub-contractors. c) According to the A.O, the bills and work orders appeared to have been prepared hurriedlyand recently as these bear the same signature

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

NISHANT JAIN,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), BILASPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 510, 511 & 512/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Nishant Jain Ring Road No.2, Shanti Nagar, Near Sidhasikhar Vistar, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Agepj9793M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

TDS. The payment may be for work done or mobilization advance or for advance for machinery purchase. They don't differentiate between the payment of gross receipts of advance made for machinery or mobilization advance. That during the year under consideration Rs.1,56,87,000/- amount has been received against mobilization advances and machinery advances from Executive Engineer Chhattisgarh Rural

NISHANT JAIN,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), BILASPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 510, 511 & 512/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Nishant Jain Ring Road No.2, Shanti Nagar, Near Sidhasikhar Vistar, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Agepj9793M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

TDS. The payment may be for work done or mobilization advance or for advance for machinery purchase. They don't differentiate between the payment of gross receipts of advance made for machinery or mobilization advance. That during the year under consideration Rs.1,56,87,000/- amount has been received against mobilization advances and machinery advances from Executive Engineer Chhattisgarh Rural

NISHANT JAIN,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, BILASPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 510, 511 & 512/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Nishant Jain Ring Road No.2, Shanti Nagar, Near Sidhasikhar Vistar, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Agepj9793M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

TDS. The payment may be for work done or mobilization advance or for advance for machinery purchase. They don't differentiate between the payment of gross receipts of advance made for machinery or mobilization advance. That during the year under consideration Rs.1,56,87,000/- amount has been received against mobilization advances and machinery advances from Executive Engineer Chhattisgarh Rural