DCIT,1(1), RAIPUR (CG) vs. SMT VIMLESH KUMAR SINGH, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member Dcit-1(1), Raipur Vs Late Shri Vijay Pal Singh, Through L/H Smt. Vimlesh Kumari Singh, Prop.M/S Manohar Engineering & M/S Sharda Engineering, Baikunth, District – Raipur Pan No. : Ahjps 0124 K (Appellant) .. Tsednepser Revenue By : Mrs. Shital Verma, Dr Assessee By : Shri K.P.Dewani, Ar Date Of Hearing : 10/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 15/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri N.S.Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Raipur, Dated 08.02.2013 For The Assessment Year 2006-2007. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :- “1. Whether In Law & On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,98,28,636/- Made By The Ao By Treating Long Term Capital Gain As Income From Undisclosed Sources.” 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Ao Observed That The Shares On Sale Of Which Ltcg Of Rs.1.95,39,611/- Was Shown & Exemption U/S.10(38) Of The Act Was Claimed Were Held Barely For Little More Than One Year To Qualify The Same As Long Term Capital Asset. The Cost Of The Shares Was Rs.2,69,400/- & Sale Consideration Was Rs.1,98,28,636/-. He

cash credit under section 68 of the Act The stand of the assessee has been that the impugned receipt is on account of sale of shares which shares were duly purchased more than one year ago and were held thereafter continuously by assessee and therefore the gain on sale of such shares is to be held as long term capital

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER -1, RAIGARH, RAIGARH(CG) vs. SHRI SHRI PARMANAND GUPTA, RAIGARH, RAIGARH(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 82/Rpr/2017 Co. No. 02/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 The Income Tax Officer-1, Raigarh (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Parmanand Gupta, Alochan Agrawal, L/H. Of Late Shri Parmanand Gupta, Prop. M/S. Balaji Handloom, 19/48, Palace Road, Raigarh (C.G.) Pan : Afdpg4961L ……""यथ" / Respondent

cash deposits that were frequently made in the bank accounts of the assessee throughout the year under consideration, and there is no independent application of mind on his part qua the aforesaid information so received by him. As can safely be gathered from a perusal of the aforesaid reasons to believe, the A.O had merely referred to the information that

SHRIMATI EPPARI MANGAMMA,JAGDALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, JAGDALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.175/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Eppari Mangamma, New Bus Stand, Ganga Nagar Ward, Jagdalpur, Baster, Pan : Aadpe4575F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- Jagdalpur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

Capital Gain (LTCG) on sale of the aforesaid residential land, but had not filed her return(s) of income for the succeeding two years i.e. A.Y.2013-14 and A.Y 2014- 15. Also, it was observed by the A.O that the assesee had not filed her return(s) of income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), , RAIPUR vs. SHRI RADHESHYAM AGRAWAL, RAIPUR

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.32/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. Radheshyam Agrawal 27/B, Ankit Choubey Colony, Raipur (C.G.). Pan : Aczpa6544J ……""यथ" / Respondent

cash and the bills/vouchers would either not be available or may not be provided by the recipients of the payments, therefore, considering the said ground realties the recitals of the registered sale deed which evidenced the construction of the property were to be given due weightage, which, thus supported the assesee’s claim of having incurred the 13 DCIT

SMT BUDHAREEN BAI,BHATAPARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, BHATAPARA

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Budhia Reen Bai, Ito, Near Shitala Mandir, Bhatapara (Cg). Hathanipara Ward, Vs. Bhatapara (Cg) – 493118. Pan : Bxxpb0771Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vikash Sharma, Adv. Department By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 13-05-2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-05-2019 O R D E R Per Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Am :

cash deposit is from unexplained sources. The identity of persons may have been proved, but there is no supporting document that transactions had at all taken place. Statements of persons without any documents are not reliable. The addition is therefore sustained. 3.1 Ground (ii) has been taken against computation of capital gains

OM PRAKASH VERMA,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAGDALPUR, JAGDALPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 87/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Om Prakash Verma H. No.53, Star Homes Campus, Bawadiya Kalan, Bhopal (M.P)-462 039 Pan : Aaipv9836F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Jagdalpur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

capital gain on the said sale consideration or not. On verification of photocopy of bank 7 Om Prakash Verma Vs. ITO, Jagdalpur statement furnished alongwith written submission dated 30.04.2014, it is noticed that the assessee has deposited Rs.14,00,000/- on 10.02.2010 whereas in the same line, the cheque date has mentioned as 03.06.2010. How, a cheque issued

SEEMA DEVI AGRAWAL,RAIGARH, CHHATTISGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BILASPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Seema Devi Agrawal C/O. Sunil Kumar Agrawal Sewa Kund Road, Raigarh-496 001 (C.G.) Pan: Affpa4990K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

capital gain arising out of sale of the property was not disclosed by the assessee. Though correctness of the investment so far as purchase is concerned is there as per record, however, there has been no sale transactions entered by the assessee at all during F.Y.2014-15 relevant to A.Y.2015-16, therefore, the entire “reasons to believe” by the A.O is vitiated

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), RAIPUR vs. MESERSS T.C. BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR

In the result CO filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assistant Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Tc Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 1(1) Vasudev, B-5, Sector-5, Raipur, (C.G.) Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aacct4516F Cross Objection No. 26/Rpr/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 173/Rpr/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Tc Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 1(1) Vasudev, B-5, Sector-5, Raipur, (C.G.) Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aacct4516F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 16-08-2023 घोषणाक" तार"ख/Date : 27-10-2023 Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am:

cash receipt of Rs. 2,70,00,000/-, seven villas valued at Rs. 2,25,75,000/-, two flats valued at Rs. 53,87,200/- and two shops valued at Rs. 5,54,400/- totaling to Rs. 5,55,16,600/- as sale consideration and after deducting indexed acquisition cost of land at Rs. 1,58,39,316/- has computed

GHANSHYAM LAL, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K Panda & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.241/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Ghanshyam Lal Ward No.06, Chhatauna Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 222 Pan: Ajupl0084A ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1 (C.G.)

capital gain which the A.O had failed to make necessary 6 Ghanshyam Lal Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 enquiry and verification. The A.O had restricted the assessment order only to the addition of cash deposits

SUDHA GUPTA,BILASPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 435/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

cash deposits. The addition made by AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) is arbitrary, illegal and not justified. 5. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 32880000/- made by AO as Long Term Capital Gain

DY. C.I.T.1(2), RAIPUR (CG) vs. M/S GODAWARI POWER & ISPAT LTD.,, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit- 1(2), Godawari Power & Ispat Ltd., Raipur (Cg). Plot No.482/2, Industrial Growth Vs. Centre, Phase- 1, Siltara, Raipur (Cg).

gain derived from the business of generation of power and consequently, eligible for deduction u/s 80-IA(4) of the I.T. Act. Relying on various decisions including the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Fenner (India) Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 241 ITR 803, decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

RENU LATA BHATIA,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as per afore-stated terms

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.191/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Renu Lata Bhatia D-407/5, Tagore Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Ahhpb4779K

cash deposits in Bank account; and (ii) the assessee has also transferred one or more properties. In other words, the properties which were transferred by the assessee. 4 Renu Lata Bhatia Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur The inquiry is restricted to transfer of property by the assessee which means sale of properties while additions on the other hand

RANJEET SINGH SAINI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of over aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 58/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

capital gain on sale of immovable property and the Learned CIT (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the same, the addition so made is contrary to facts and law, therefore, it is prayed that the impugned addition of Rs.65,80,000/- may kindly be deleted. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned

SMT SANTOSHI WARE,BHILAI(CG) vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-2, RAIPUR (CG)

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Capital Gain in the hands of the appellant overlooking the fact that the property was jointly inherited by the appellant along with her brothers 2 and sisters and she was owner of only 1/6 share in the property. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in not addressing

GANPAT SAHU,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(5) , RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 61/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ganpat Sahu S/O. Late Shri Sattusahu, Dabripara, Near Krishna Public School, Village-Dunda, P.O. Sejbahar, Raipur (C.G.)-492015 Pan : Fzxps0022R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-4(5), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

cash deposits aggregating to Rs.35.11 lacs in his bank account, but had not filed his return of income either for the year under consideration or that for the preceding years, the A.O initiated proceedings u/s.147 of the Act. Notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 29.03.2016 was issued to the assessee. In compliance, the assessee e-filed his return of income

SUSHIL KUMAR AGRAWAL,KORBA vs. DEPUTY COMMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, KORBA, KORBA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.148/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Prop. Of M/S. Shrikishan & Co., Darri Road, Korba (C.G.) Pan : Acgpa4350B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

gains of business or profession”,- (a) in the case of any assessee- *** *** *** (ia) thirty per cent. of any sum payable to a resident, on which tax is deductible at source under Chapter XVII-B and such tax has not been deducted or, after deduction, has not been paid on or before the due date specified in sub-section

CHHATTISGARH SWAMI VIVEKANAND TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY,POST-NEWAI vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION), IT EXEMPTION OFFICE RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 581/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2012-13)

gain. It is kept by the university as Government Fund. It reflects the institution's commitment to its mission and shows that the university is operating in line with its non- profit status and educational focus. Therefore the appellant is eligible for exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab). For claiming exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) any university or other educational institution

I.T.O. -1, BHILAI(CG) vs. SHRI CHOWA RAM BAGHEL, DURG(CG)

cash three days before the deal. On receipt of the said amount, the same was deposited in the bank. 4. The AO further observed that the assessee in his statement submitted that out of the sum received on land deal, he purchased an agricultural land at Tehsil Rajim, Raipur at Rs.5,52,000/- on 27.07.2011 in his name