DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1), RAIPUR vs. SHRI VARUN JAIN , RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 221/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Varun Jain 22-B, South Avenue, Choubey Colony, Raipur (C.G.). Pan : Aggpj1319R ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 222/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Vaibhav Jain 22-B, South Avenue, Choubey Colony, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Akbps4207Q ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By :Shri Amit M Jain, Ar Revenue By :Shri Sanjay Sharma, Sr. Dr

Section 47(xiii) of the Ac), but are of the considered view that as the said issue would only be relevant qua a transfer transaction by a firm to a company and would have no bearing on the quantification of the amount of capital gain on the transfer of the capital asset i.e. land situated at Vill : Tatiband

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

section 10(38) of the Act. We find that assessee has purchased the shares through off market deal and therefore such transaction for purchase of shares by the assessee ought not to have been registered with the Calcutta Stock Exchange. Secondly, the Voucher for shares sold to the assessee issued by M/s Badri Prasad & Sons, broker of the Calcutta Stock

JAI GURUDEV INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD,BILASPUR vs. PR. CIT, BILASPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A. No. 65/Rpr/2020 अपील िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Jai Gurudev Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Principal Commissioner Of बनाम/ बनाम बनाम बनाम C-11, Netaji Complex, Jarhabhata, Income-Tax, Vs. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Bilaspur "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccj 1895 R .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ca अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : 29.07.2021 सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing 14.10.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश/O R D E R Per Pradip Kumar Kedia - Am:

Section 263 of the Act, called for the assessment records and observed that such order is erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Consequently, a show-cause notice dated 26.02.2020 was issued to show-cause as to why the assessment order in question should not be modified/set aside on the ground that such order is erroneous insofar

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

capital gains u/s. 54(1) of the Act notwithstanding registration of the sale deed beyond the period of one year. The observations of the Hon’ble High Court are culled out as under: “……………The Income-tax Officer held that the crucial date for the purpose of determining when the property was purchased was the date of registration of the sale

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, RAIGARH vs. M/S SUMIT GLOBAL PVT. LTD, RAIGARH

In the result appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 because of the defective title and as a result the assessee was not holding any asset and hence, investment could not be construed as a capital asset based on the dictum that no one can give a title better than what he himself has. 8. Can an amount be taxed merely

GREENONE CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 56/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Greenone Construction & Development Private Limited C21/22, 1St Floor Shyam Market, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.)-492 004 Pan : Aafcg5846C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1(C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

capital gain” nor claimed any exemption u/s.10(37) r.w.s 96 of RECTLARR Act, 2013. On the contrary, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that the surplus (net) of Rs.80,23,548/- received 6 Greenone Construction and Development Private Limited Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 on acquisition of its lands by NHAI was disclosed by the assessee company, a real

RAHUL BAJPAI,IDGAH CHOWK vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), SHRI RAM PLAZA

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.348/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Rahul Bajpai Idgah Chowk, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh-495 001 Pan: Aexpb4410L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

capital gain. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case CIT (Central), Kolkata vs Associated Industrial Development Company (P) Ltd.(82 ITR 586) observed that whether a particular holding of shares is by way investment or forms stock-in-trade, is a matter within the knowledge of the assessee, when he holds the shares and it should, in normal circumstances

INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. RAHUL KATHURIA, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.151 & 152/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 The Income Tax Officer/Income Tax Officer-3(1) Raipur (C.G.)

Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( for short ‘the Act’). The said information reveals that the assessee had traded in the scrip of “Oasis Tradelink Ltd.” during the year. The said scrip was rigged by the entry provider namely Shri Naresh Manakchand Jain. The fact further illustrated by the A.O in the assessment order is that a search

INCOME TAX OFFICER, RAIPUR vs. RAHUL KATHURIA, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.151 & 152/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 The Income Tax Officer/Income Tax Officer-3(1) Raipur (C.G.)

Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( for short ‘the Act’). The said information reveals that the assessee had traded in the scrip of “Oasis Tradelink Ltd.” during the year. The said scrip was rigged by the entry provider namely Shri Naresh Manakchand Jain. The fact further illustrated by the A.O in the assessment order is that a search

MAYA DEVI AGRAWAL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(3), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed in terms of my observations above

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 193/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Maya Devi Agrawal Near Dena Bank, Dupan Para Kharora, Raipur (C.G.)-493 225 Pan : Acipa5876A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(3), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

23,903/- on account of long term capital gain. 2. The assessee craves leave to add, urge, alter, modify and withdraw any ground/grounds before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” Also, the assessee has raised additional grounds of appeal, which reads as follows: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, reopening

RAHUL BAJPAI,IDGAH CHOWK vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), SHRI RAM PLAZA

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.345/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rahul Bajpai Idgah Chowk, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh-495 001 Pan: Aexpb4410L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

Capital Gains; and (iv) tax credit mismatch. Admittedly, the examination of the difference/variance in the purchase consideration of the property i.e. land situated at Mouja : Khapargaunge, Bilaspur (admeasuring 206.143 Aq. Mtrs.) that was purchased by the assessee for a consideration of Rs.5 lacs as against the FMV/stamp duty value of Rs.55,65,900/- in the backdrop of Section

SUNITHA NAIR, PALAKKAD,PALAKKAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.125/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12

section 2(14) of the Act. The A.O also observed that since no details in respect of purchase of the subject property were available, therefore, no deduction for cost of acquisition was allowed. Accordingly, the A.O calculated the Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) as under: “Sale Consideration : Rs.45,00,000/- Assessee’s share of sale consideration : Rs.22,50,000/- Indexed

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).

capital receipt not chargeable to tax. It was accordingly argued that the amount of Rs.67,18,544/- received during the year on sale of carbon credit is not at all taxable. The assessee also stated that it has incurred an expenditure of Rs.31,23,279/- which has been debited under the head “CDM Expenses” and shown as Operating Expenses. Thus

I.T.O. WARD -1(1), RAIPUR (CG) vs. M/S CMDC ICPL COAL LTD,, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2011-12 Ito, Ward- 1(1), Cmdc Icpl Coal Ltd., Raipur (Cg). Rajbandha Maidan, G. E. Road, Vs. Raipur (Cg).

gains, a capital receipt shall be outside the scope of section 4. 10. While determining the nature of a receipt as being a trading receipt taxable as income from business or profession or otherwise, one should be guided by the terms of the agreement genuinely entered into between the parties. The Revenue authorities cannot ignore the genuine agreements

THE DY. CIT-1(1),, RAIPUR (CG) vs. RAKESH SARAOGI & SONI (HUF),, RAIPUR (CG)

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Ram Lal Negi)

Capital Gains from the sale of the impugned scrips was treated as income from undisclosed sources. 11. In his statement and the related enquiries, there is nothing on record to suggest that the brokers have given accommodation entries to the assessee. Nor there is any reference to the transactions done by the assessee. The A.O. has simply presumed that

DY. C.I.T.2(1), RAIPUR (CG) vs. SHRI TARAL MODI, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit- 2(1), Abhishek Atlani, Raipur (Cg). Atlani Bunglow, Khamardih Road, Vs. Shankar Nagar, Raipur (Cg).

capital gain was much more. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view findings in the above referred appellate orders dt. 13.08.2013 and 23.05.2014, I am convinced that the AO was not justified in making addition of Rs.2,61,50,496/- and the same cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.2

DY. C.I.T.2(1), RAIPUR (CG) vs. SHRI SURESH ATLANI, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit- 2(1), Abhishek Atlani, Raipur (Cg). Atlani Bunglow, Khamardih Road, Vs. Shankar Nagar, Raipur (Cg).

capital gain was much more. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view findings in the above referred appellate orders dt. 13.08.2013 and 23.05.2014, I am convinced that the AO was not justified in making addition of Rs.2,61,50,496/- and the same cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.2

DY. C.I.T.2(1), RAIPUR (CG) vs. ABHISHEK ATLANI, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit- 2(1), Abhishek Atlani, Raipur (Cg). Atlani Bunglow, Khamardih Road, Vs. Shankar Nagar, Raipur (Cg).

capital gain was much more. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view findings in the above referred appellate orders dt. 13.08.2013 and 23.05.2014, I am convinced that the AO was not justified in making addition of Rs.2,61,50,496/- and the same cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.2

SHRI ANAND KISHORE BAGREE,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 4(4), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain. The Ld AO has relied upon the investigation report of investigation wing, Calcutta and suspension of trading of Sunbright Stock Broking Ltd due to surveillance measures, the same aspect has further demonstrated by the AO by affixing screen shots of the suspension of the said company on account surveillance by the SEBI. Contention of the AO was accepted