ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

capitalized for Rs. 1,56,77,767/- Rs. 1,56,77,767/- - development of projects 2. Guest House expenses Rs. 27,50,500/- Rs. 27,50,500/- - 3. Expenses on assets not Rs. 1,02,16,100/- Rs. 51,08,050/- Rs.51,08,050/- belonging to the assessee 4. Social overhead-Grants

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

capitalized for Rs. 1,56,77,767/- Rs. 1,56,77,767/- - development of projects 2. Guest House expenses Rs. 27,50,500/- Rs. 27,50,500/- - 3. Expenses on assets not Rs. 1,02,16,100/- Rs. 51,08,050/- Rs.51,08,050/- belonging to the assessee 4. Social overhead-Grants

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

capitalized for Rs. 1,56,77,767/- Rs. 1,56,77,767/- - development of projects 2. Guest House expenses Rs. 27,50,500/- Rs. 27,50,500/- - 3. Expenses on assets not Rs. 1,02,16,100/- Rs. 51,08,050/- Rs.51,08,050/- belonging to the assessee 4. Social overhead-Grants

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

capitalized for Rs. 1,56,77,767/- Rs. 1,56,77,767/- - development of projects 2. Guest House expenses Rs. 27,50,500/- Rs. 27,50,500/- - 3. Expenses on assets not Rs. 1,02,16,100/- Rs. 51,08,050/- Rs.51,08,050/- belonging to the assessee 4. Social overhead-Grants

ADDL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE -1, BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

capitalized for Rs. 1,56,77,767/- Rs. 1,56,77,767/- - development of projects 2. Guest House expenses Rs. 27,50,500/- Rs. 27,50,500/- - 3. Expenses on assets not Rs. 1,02,16,100/- Rs. 51,08,050/- Rs.51,08,050/- belonging to the assessee 4. Social overhead-Grants

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

capitalized for Rs. 1,56,77,767/- Rs. 1,56,77,767/- - development of projects 2. Guest House expenses Rs. 27,50,500/- Rs. 27,50,500/- - 3. Expenses on assets not Rs. 1,02,16,100/- Rs. 51,08,050/- Rs.51,08,050/- belonging to the assessee 4. Social overhead-Grants

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

capitalized for Rs. 1,56,77,767/- Rs. 1,56,77,767/- - development of projects 2. Guest House expenses Rs. 27,50,500/- Rs. 27,50,500/- - 3. Expenses on assets not Rs. 1,02,16,100/- Rs. 51,08,050/- Rs.51,08,050/- belonging to the assessee 4. Social overhead-Grants

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

capitalized for Rs. 1,56,77,767/- Rs. 1,56,77,767/- - development of projects 2. Guest House expenses Rs. 27,50,500/- Rs. 27,50,500/- - 3. Expenses on assets not Rs. 1,02,16,100/- Rs. 51,08,050/- Rs.51,08,050/- belonging to the assessee 4. Social overhead-Grants

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. SHRI BAJRANG POWER AND ISPAT LTD., 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. 201/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Bajrang Power & Ispat Limited, 00, Vill. Borjhara, Urla Guma Road, Raipur-493221. Pan : Aaccb2944D ……""यथ" / Respondent

253 (SC), the A.O. was of the view that subsidy received by the assessee company in the garb of assistance for the purpose of carrying on its trade was in the nature of a revenue receipt. Accordingly, the A.O., backed by his aforesaid conviction, made an addition of an amount of Rs.3,09,58,737/- to the returned income

VISHAL BUILDERS, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.263/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vishal Builders 7/619, Gawri Bhawan, Fafadih Naka, Raipur-492001(C.G.) Pan : Aaefv1401G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Raipur, C.G.

capital. 10 Vishal Builders vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) 7. We have deliberated at length on the issue in hand and concur with the specific observation of the CIT(Appeals) that the AO had rejected the books results of the assessee not on the basis of any substantial lapse in its books of account, but rather

KAMLESH SHARMA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), 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: 70/Rpr/2026 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2020-21) Kamlesh Sharma, House No.109, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Harihant Nagar, Sarona, Tax, Circle-1(1), Central Revenue Ring Road No.1, Raipur-492001, Cg Building, Civil Lines, Raipur-492001 Pan: Bppps4514C (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: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2020-21 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.12.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [‘Cit(A)’], National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’), Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

Capital Gain. All these additions are liable to be deleted. 4. 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 ground, a legal ground, challenges the validity of reopening of assessment