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

47 CTR (SC) 126 : (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC) distinguished.” 15. The Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. Ravindra Sanghai (HUF), ITA No.698//Kol/2010, vide order dated 22.05.2012,wherein the shares of Multiplus Resources Ltd. in question for earning of Long Term Capital Gain and shares held as under:- “2. The only issue in respect

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I, RAIPUR vs. MESERS CHHATTISGARH STEEL & POWER LIMITED, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.91 & 92/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Chhattisgarh Steel & Power Limited. 142, Sahid Smarak, G.E Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaccc7479G ……""यथ" / Respondent

vi) Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board vs ITO (2012) 143 TTJ 151 (Mum.) in ITA No. 20 to 23/BLPR/2010 (vii) DCIT vs Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. (2017) 50 CCH 78 (Mum. Trib.) ITA No. 1422/Mum/2015 and 1480/Mum/2015 dt. 02.06.2017. (viii) ITO vs Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (2013) 37 CCH 522 (Jodh. Trib.); ITA No. 488 to 491/Jodh/2010 dt. 30.08.2013. 22. We have given

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL)-I, RAIPUR vs. MESERS CHHATTISGARH STEEL & POWER LIMITED, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.91 & 92/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Chhattisgarh Steel & Power Limited. 142, Sahid Smarak, G.E Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaccc7479G ……""यथ" / Respondent

vi) Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board vs ITO (2012) 143 TTJ 151 (Mum.) in ITA No. 20 to 23/BLPR/2010 (vii) DCIT vs Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. (2017) 50 CCH 78 (Mum. Trib.) ITA No. 1422/Mum/2015 and 1480/Mum/2015 dt. 02.06.2017. (viii) ITO vs Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (2013) 37 CCH 522 (Jodh. Trib.); ITA No. 488 to 491/Jodh/2010 dt. 30.08.2013. 22. We have given

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.114/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Village- Pacheda, Block-Abhanpur, Chhatisgarh-493 661 Pan : Aaaag9886H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

47,190/-, inter alia, on the basis of following grounds: Sr. Particulars Amount Reasons No. 1. Rejection of the Rs.2,24,894/-. (i) The A.O was of the view that assessee’s claim for as the interest income earned deduction of interest by the assessee society the income on deposits with funds which were not Co-operative banks immediately required

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

47,61,530/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). However, the CIT(Appeals) not finding favour with the 8 Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit ( a group of 22 cases) contentions advanced by the assessee upheld the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,VILL: RISDA, DIST: BALODA BAZAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHATAPARA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

47,61,530/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). However, the CIT(Appeals) not finding favour with the 8 Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit ( a group of 22 cases) contentions advanced by the assessee upheld the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

47,61,530/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). However, the CIT(Appeals) not finding favour with the 8 Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit ( a group of 22 cases) contentions advanced by the assessee upheld the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

47,61,530/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). However, the CIT(Appeals) not finding favour with the 8 Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit ( a group of 22 cases) contentions advanced by the assessee upheld the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

47,61,530/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). However, the CIT(Appeals) not finding favour with the 8 Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit ( a group of 22 cases) contentions advanced by the assessee upheld the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT, VILLAGE: TAMASEONI,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

47,61,530/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). However, the CIT(Appeals) not finding favour with the 8 Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit ( a group of 22 cases) contentions advanced by the assessee upheld the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with

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

47,61,530/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). However, the CIT(Appeals) not finding favour with the 8 Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit ( a group of 22 cases) contentions advanced by the assessee upheld the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

47,61,530/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). However, the CIT(Appeals) not finding favour with the 8 Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit ( a group of 22 cases) contentions advanced by the assessee upheld the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

47,61,530/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). However, the CIT(Appeals) not finding favour with the 8 Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit ( a group of 22 cases) contentions advanced by the assessee upheld the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

47,61,530/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). However, the CIT(Appeals) not finding favour with the 8 Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit ( a group of 22 cases) contentions advanced by the assessee upheld the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

47,61,530/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). However, the CIT(Appeals) not finding favour with the 8 Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit ( a group of 22 cases) contentions advanced by the assessee upheld the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

47,61,530/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). However, the CIT(Appeals) not finding favour with the 8 Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit ( a group of 22 cases) contentions advanced by the assessee upheld the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

47,61,530/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). However, the CIT(Appeals) not finding favour with the 8 Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit ( a group of 22 cases) contentions advanced by the assessee upheld the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

47,61,530/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). However, the CIT(Appeals) not finding favour with the 8 Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit ( a group of 22 cases) contentions advanced by the assessee upheld the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,VILL: POND DIST: RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1(1), RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

47,61,530/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). However, the CIT(Appeals) not finding favour with the 8 Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit ( a group of 22 cases) contentions advanced by the assessee upheld the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with