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

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

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

VINOD KUMAR KAILASHCHANDRA VERMA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 69/Rpr/2026 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vinod Kumar Khailashchandra Verma, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), House No.496/9, Avanti Vihar, Sector-2, Central Revenue Building, Telibandha, Raipur-492001 (C.G.) Civil Lines, Raipur, C.G. 492001 Pan: Aanpv5964B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None. (Adjournment Petition Filed.) राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 06/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

Capital Gain. All these additions are liable to be deleted. 5. That the appellant reserves the right to add, alter or modify any ground of appeal.” 2.1 The 1st ground challenges the non-admission of appeal by rejecting the delay condonation application by the Ld. CIT(A). The 2nd & 3rd ground, legal grounds, challenge the validity of reopening of assessment

INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIVIL LINES, RAIPUR vs. SANDEEP JHABAK, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.418/Rpr/2024 Co No.16/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Sandeep Jhabak M/S. Allied Traders, Jhabak Bada, Near Tatyapara, Kamasipara (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Adnpj2221L ……""यथ" / Respondent

cash deposits made in the assessee’s bank account with HDFC bank had remained omitted to be examined : Rs.3,00,000/-; and (iv) shop rent was wrongly assessed under the head “Income from house property”. 6 ITO-4(1), Raipur Vs. Shri Sandeep Jhabak CO No.16/RPR/2024 4. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the A.O observed that the assessee along

SHRI SHRI SHIV SHANKAR AGRAWAL,KORBA(CG) vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, KORBA(CG)

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 270/Rpr/2016) (Assessment Year: 2008-09)

gains of business" has to be computed in accordance with the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee. Furthermore, for rejecting the books of accounts under condition no.2, the Learned AO has to demonstrate that the accounts are not correct and complete as there exist serious defects in maintenance of accounts, irrespective of whether accounting methods or accounting standards

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. S.P. BUILDCON PVT. LTD., RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 35 & 38/Rpr/2023) (Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V S.P. Buildcon Private Limited Circle-1(1), S Ff-06, Shyam Plaza, Pandri Bus Stand, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Raipur Pan: Aajcs0653H (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) . (""यथ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Amit M. Jain, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 05-09-2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2023

deposit amount was given in the year under consideration; as the provisions of s. 2(22)(e) are attracted the amount was rightly treated as deemed dividend to the extent of accumulated profit of the company at the beginning of the year. CIT vs. M.B. Stockholding Pvt. Limited, Tax Appeal No. 772 of 2007, Date of order 23.04.2015, Gujrat High

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. S.P. BUILDCON PVT. LTD., RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 35 & 38/Rpr/2023) (Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V S.P. Buildcon Private Limited Circle-1(1), S Ff-06, Shyam Plaza, Pandri Bus Stand, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Raipur Pan: Aajcs0653H (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) . (""यथ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Amit M. Jain, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 05-09-2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2023

deposit amount was given in the year under consideration; as the provisions of s. 2(22)(e) are attracted the amount was rightly treated as deemed dividend to the extent of accumulated profit of the company at the beginning of the year. CIT vs. M.B. Stockholding Pvt. Limited, Tax Appeal No. 772 of 2007, Date of order 23.04.2015, Gujrat High

SUNIL BARDIA,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RAJNANDGAON, RAJNANDGAON

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 254/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sunil Bardia Vs Income Tax Officer C/O. Bardia Niwas, Sadar Bazar, Ward-1, Rajnandgaon Rajnandgaon (C.G.)-491 441 Pan: Adfpb7851A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.B Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10 /10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

gains of business income from other sources, had filed return of income for A.Y.2017-18 on 30.03.2018 declaring total income at Rs.4,78,990/-. Subsequently the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment through CASS to examine the issue “large deduction claimed u/s.57”. Proceedings were initiated after issuing statutory notices and calling for details. From assessment records

CHHATTISGARH STATE POWER TRANSMISSION COMPANY LIMITED,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.81/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd. Executive Director (Fin.), Csptcl, Second Floor, Sldc Building, Cseb Office Campus, Danginiya Raipur-492 013 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5773E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

capital expenditure by the A.O, which, therein, had been upheld by the CIT(Appeals) is primarily based on the fact that such approach was adopted by the A.O while framing assessments for the earlier years. We are of the considered view that now when in the case of CSEB for A.Y.2004-05 the matter has been remitted by the Tribunal

CHHATTISGARH STATE POWER TRANSMISSION COMPANY LTD,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4(1), RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.81/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd. Executive Director (Fin.), Csptcl, Second Floor, Sldc Building, Cseb Office Campus, Danginiya Raipur-492 013 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5773E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

capital expenditure by the A.O, which, therein, had been upheld by the CIT(Appeals) is primarily based on the fact that such approach was adopted by the A.O while framing assessments for the earlier years. We are of the considered view that now when in the case of CSEB for A.Y.2004-05 the matter has been remitted by the Tribunal

THE CHHATTISGARH STATE POWER GENERATION COMPANY LIMITED, RAIPUR,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(2),RAIPUR, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.16/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. O/O. Executive Director-Finance Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.24/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

capital expenditure by the A.O, which, therein, had been upheld by the CIT(Appeals) is primarily based on the fact that such approach was adopted by the A.O while framing assessment in the case of CSEB for years prior to A.Y.2009-10. We are of the considered view that now when in the case of CSEB for A.Y.2004-05 the matter