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

M/S. RAJENDRA NATHANI (HUF),RAIPUR (CG) vs. ITO- 1(2),, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2010-11 Rajendra Nathani (Huf), Ito- 1(2), H-100, I-6, Rajiv Nagar, Raipur (Cg). Shankar Nagar, Vs. Raipur (Cg).

26,300/- in view of provisions of section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] has erred in confirming the enhancement to the total income done by Learned A.O. without considering the provisions of Section 50C(2) of the Income

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)

gains tax cannot be and ought not to be traced to an act of commission or omission by the transferee of the assessee. Being an absolute owner the transferee is always free to put the land to best use as the transferee thinks fit and proper. In the case on hand, the assessee both factually and legally did not change

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), RAIPUR vs. HI-TECH ABRASIVE PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.142/Rpr/2018 (Assessment Year: 2014-2015) Acit, Circle-2(1), Raipur Vs Hi-Tech Abrasive Pvt. Ltd. 740, Sector-B, Urla Industrial Area, Raipur Pan No. :Aaach 5950 M & Cross Objection No.14/Rpr/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.142/Rpr/2018) (Assessment Year: 2014-2015) Hi-Tech Abrasive Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Circle-2(1), Raipur 740, Sector-B, Urla Industrial Area, Raipur Pan No. :Aaach 5950 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R. B. Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 14/07/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19/07/2023

section 50 of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not incurred any actual loss rather had claimed deduction notional loss & CO No.14/RPR/18 merely making book entry which is disallowable u/s 37 of the Act?” 3. Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in giving

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

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 26,02,623 gains 3. Gross Total Income 53,64,42,803 Less: Set-off of unabsorbed depreciation R.R. 2,53,85,466 Ispat- A.Y. 2010-11 as per the revised return Set-off of unabsorbed depreciation Iron Ore 20,50,644 2,74,36,110 crushing Div – A.Y. 2009-10 as per the revised return Less: Deduction

RAIPUR REALTY PVT LTD, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3 (1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.241/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Raipur Realty Pvt. Ltd. E-76, G.K. Chambers, Sector-2, Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aahcr0621C ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

Capital Gains of ₹ 53,08,113/- pertaining to compensation received towards compulsory acquisition of his agricultural land and paid taxes to the tune of ₹ 24,30,521/-. The income tax return of the assessee was processed on 3-1-2021 by the Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru and intimation order was issued exercising powers under Section

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

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

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

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

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

section 4(1), we find no reason to disturb the Commissioners orders.” 15. The Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:- “According to us, not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity

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).

section 69B of Income Tax Act, 1961. According to him, the compensation received represents the investments which are not recorded in the accounts of hence by virtue of the deeming provisions, the addition of Rs.2,61,50,496/- was made by the Assessing Officer to the income of the assessee. 7. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee made elaborate

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).

section 69B of Income Tax Act, 1961. According to him, the compensation received represents the investments which are not recorded in the accounts of hence by virtue of the deeming provisions, the addition of Rs.2,61,50,496/- was made by the Assessing Officer to the income of the assessee. 7. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee made elaborate

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).

section 69B of Income Tax Act, 1961. According to him, the compensation received represents the investments which are not recorded in the accounts of hence by virtue of the deeming provisions, the addition of Rs.2,61,50,496/- was made by the Assessing Officer to the income of the assessee. 7. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee made elaborate

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain claimed exempt by appellant u/s.10(38). The addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) is arbitrary, baseless not justified. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual having income from business or profession and also having income from other sources. The assessee filed its return of income

M/S FOOD HEALTH PVT. LTD.,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

In the result, the assessee's appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

capital gain as exempt in terms of Section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act and on the strength of circular No.36/2016 dt:25/10/2016 issued by the CBDT. A copy of the circular is annexed at Page-1 to 2. A.Y.2017-18 Your honor has observed that the order passed by the AO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial

M/S HERITAGE BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1,, RAIPUR

In the result, the assessee's appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

capital gain as exempt in terms of Section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act and on the strength of circular No.36/2016 dt:25/10/2016 issued by the CBDT. A copy of the circular is annexed at Page-1 to 2. A.Y.2017-18 Your honor has observed that the order passed by the AO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial

M/S RAIPUR REALITY PVT. LTD.,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

In the result, the assessee's appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

capital gain as exempt in terms of Section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act and on the strength of circular No.36/2016 dt:25/10/2016 issued by the CBDT. A copy of the circular is annexed at Page-1 to 2. A.Y.2017-18 Your honor has observed that the order passed by the AO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial