DCIT-1(1), BHILAI vs. VIJAYA DESHLAHRA, INDORE

In the result, ITA No. 92/RPR/2025 & C

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpia

Capital Gain and Losses. No prudent businessman and particularly a trader or investor in stock will invest in share of such a company which is virtually defunct and inoperative.” 9. That, in response to the proposed variation in the draft assessment order, the assessee had filed reply which is extracted as follows:- “1. All details related to LTCG which

PAWAN KUMAR CHANDRAKAR, DHAMTARI,DHAMTARI vs. ITO, WARD-DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 685, 686 & 687/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16) Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward Dhamtari, Gandhi Chowk, Kurud, Shankardan Road, Village:Haraftarai, Dhamtari-493663, Chhattisgarh. Dhamtari-493773, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aqdpc2033J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Veekas S Sharma, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 12/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

Capital Gains, if any rather than taxing the entire sale consideration as income. It is painful to see such appellate order. 7. It is evident from the perusal of section 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) and Explanation of section 251(2) of the Act that the CIT(A) is required to apply his/her mind to all the issues which

PAWAN KUMAR CHANDRAKAR, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI vs. ITO,WARD-DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 685, 686 & 687/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16) Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward Dhamtari, Gandhi Chowk, Kurud, Shankardan Road, Village:Haraftarai, Dhamtari-493663, Chhattisgarh. Dhamtari-493773, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aqdpc2033J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Veekas S Sharma, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 12/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

Capital Gains, if any rather than taxing the entire sale consideration as income. It is painful to see such appellate order. 7. It is evident from the perusal of section 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) and Explanation of section 251(2) of the Act that the CIT(A) is required to apply his/her mind to all the issues which

PAWAN KUMAR CHANDRAKAR, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI vs. ITO, WARD-DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 685, 686 & 687/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16) Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward Dhamtari, Gandhi Chowk, Kurud, Shankardan Road, Village:Haraftarai, Dhamtari-493663, Chhattisgarh. Dhamtari-493773, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aqdpc2033J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Veekas S Sharma, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 12/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

Capital Gains, if any rather than taxing the entire sale consideration as income. It is painful to see such appellate order. 7. It is evident from the perusal of section 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) and Explanation of section 251(2) of the Act that the CIT(A) is required to apply his/her mind to all the issues which

KAVITA BUDHIA,NEAR MAA SHARDA HOSPITAL RING ROAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KORBA, MAHANADI COMPLEX, NIHARIKA

Appeal of the assessee is 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: 171/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2016-17)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), dated 08.01.2025, for the Assessment Year 2016-17, which in turn arises from the order passed by Assessing Officers, National Faceless Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Delhi (in short “Ld. AR”), u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 04.12.2023. 2 Kavita Budhia Vs ITO, Ward-1, Korba

BRIJMOHAN PRASAD GUPTA, KANKER,KANKER vs. ITO, WARD- JAGDALPUR, JAGDALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.42/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Brijmohan Prasad Gupta Janakpur Ward, Tikrapara, Kanker (C.G.)-494 334 Pan: Adbpg3007B

Gain/ Short Term Capital Loss (STCL) by manipulating its share prices by the syndicate of operators. The Director of M/s Sikaria Share & Stock Broking Services Pvt Ltd, 6 Brijmohan Prasad Gupta Vs. ITO, Ward-Jagdalpur Shri Bal Krishna Sikaria in his statement stated that he had provided the entries of Bogus LTCG/STCL etc. to various clients, Shri Brijmohan Prasad Gupta

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1),, RAIPUR vs. SHRI SHARAD GOEL, RAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue stands dismissed, in terms of our observations herein above

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

capital gain thereby completely ignoring the provisions as per section 45(3) of the IT act, 1961?" 2. "Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. Rs. 5,77,59,138/-, thereby not considering and not distinguishing the findings of the AO which

SHIKHAR CHAND JAIN, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 555/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shikhar Chand Jain Gali No.3, Ashok Vihar Colony, Near Bansal School, Pandri, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Achpj2931Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

capital gain. Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the appellant are dismissed. 6. In the result, the appellant’s appeal is dismissed.” 5. Thereafter, the assessee filed an application seeking rectification u/s. 154 of the Act, dated 21.09.2024 with the CIT(Appeals), wherein it was claimed that as the CIT(Appeals) had dismissed the appeal without adverting to the specific

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(3), BHILAI, BHILAI vs. RAMANDEEP SINGH SOHI, DURG

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.268/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 The Income Tax Officer-1(3), Bhilai (C.G.)

Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act. 11. It is also observed that the primary source from which the present matter emanates is the investigation report of the department. It has been unearthed that the modus-oparandi adopted by the assessee is being 11 ITO-1(3), Bhilai Vs. Ramandeep Singh Sohi beneficiary to the tune of Rs.26

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.

250 as passed by the Ld.CIT (Appeals) is bad in law as well as on facts. 2. That the reopening is invalid based on change of opinion as the facts of purchase of land worth Rs.4,11,000/- was brought to the notice of A.O. in the original assessment. No new material was available to the A.O. – ITAT Raipur

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.)

capital loss of Rs.556736/- and intraday profit of Rs.46804/-. thus, in total the assessee has earned only 92600/- on which taxes were also paid. It clearly shows, that the assessee was not benefitted by the alleged price rigging done by Naresh J with an intent to bring his unaccounted income into their books of account without paying taxes

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.)

capital loss of Rs.556736/- and intraday profit of Rs.46804/-. thus, in total the assessee has earned only 92600/- on which taxes were also paid. It clearly shows, that the assessee was not benefitted by the alleged price rigging done by Naresh J with an intent to bring his unaccounted income into their books of account without paying taxes

JCIT, (OSD), CIRCLE 1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. MAHENDRA KUMAR GUPTA HUF, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.131/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd), Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

capital gain. The A.O. after recording his findings finally held as follows: 3. In this background, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had held and observed as follows: “7.3 Decision: I have carefully examined the assessment order and the written submission filed by the assessee. The remand report was requisitioned from the AO on 07.11.2025 but the AO has not submitted

M/S ASHTA VINAYAK FARMS, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 16 & 17/Rpr/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2016-17)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), for the Assessment Year 2016-17, which in turn arises from the order u/s 144 of the M/s Ashta Vinayak Estate and M/s Ashta Vinayak Farms Vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur Act, passed by Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur, (in short

M/S ASHTA VINAYAK ESTATE, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 16 & 17/Rpr/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2016-17)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), for the Assessment Year 2016-17, which in turn arises from the order u/s 144 of the M/s Ashta Vinayak Estate and M/s Ashta Vinayak Farms Vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur Act, passed by Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur, (in short

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)

6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned A.U, NFAC, Delhi has erred on facts and in law in making addition of Rs.65,80,000/- on account of alleged undisclosed short term capital gain on sale of immovable property and the Learned CIT (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the same, the addition

KAMAL KISHORE RATHI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 101/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2016-17)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), dated 19.12.2024, for the Assessment Year 2016-17, which in turn arises from the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 23.05.2023, passed by Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, NFAC, Delhi, (in short “Ld. AO”). 2 Kamal Kishore Rathi

PANCHSHEEL SOLVENT PVT. LTD., RAJANANDGAON,RAJANANDGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Appeal is allowed, partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 110/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2016-17)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), dated 07.02.2024 for the Assessment Years 2016-17, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-2, Raipur (in short “Ld. AO”), under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, dated 28.12.2018. 2 Panchsheel Solvent Pvt. Ltd., Rajnandgaon vs ACIT