M/S SMS SHIVNATH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,DURG(CG) vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.87/Rpr/2017 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Acit-2(1), Bhilai Vs M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.,Toll Plaza, Near Dhamdhanaka, Durg. Pan No. :Aadcs 2258 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.107/Rpr/2016 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Vs Pr.Cit-2, Raipur Pvt Ltd.,Toll Plaza, Near Dhamdhanaka, Durg. Pan No. :Aadcs 2258 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

capital gains and income from other sources. Apart from the said incomes, the Assessee also had Income under the head business and profession amounting to Rs. 23,88,87,498 which was fully claimed as deduction U/s 80lA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act"). Tax was paid U/s 115JB of the Act. 3. The Assessee had during the immediately

ANAND SURANA,RAIPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.192/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Anand Surana, Nanesh Kripa, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aosps5275H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1 (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

capital gain (LTCG). Accordingly, the Pr. CIT held a conviction that as the A.O had failed to apply his mind to the aforesaid issue which was one of the reason for selection of his case for scrutiny assessment, therefore, the same had rendered the assessment order passed by him as erroneous in so far it was prejudicial to the interest

SANJOG JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 263 of the Act as had been looked into by the Hon’ble Courts deal with the two issues which goes to the very foundation of the present appeal, viz. (i) that as to whether or not the Pr. CIT while exercising his revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act had rightly concluded that the subject land

SANJOG JHABAK L/H OF LATE GAUTAM CHAND JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 263 of the Act as had been looked into by the Hon’ble Courts deal with the two issues which goes to the very foundation of the present appeal, viz. (i) that as to whether or not the Pr. CIT while exercising his revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act had rightly concluded that the subject land

SANKET JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 263 of the Act as had been looked into by the Hon’ble Courts deal with the two issues which goes to the very foundation of the present appeal, viz. (i) that as to whether or not the Pr. CIT while exercising his revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act had rightly concluded that the subject land

SMT. PUSHPA JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 263 of the Act as had been looked into by the Hon’ble Courts deal with the two issues which goes to the very foundation of the present appeal, viz. (i) that as to whether or not the Pr. CIT while exercising his revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act had rightly concluded that the subject land

SMT. TILOTTAMA JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 263 of the Act as had been looked into by the Hon’ble Courts deal with the two issues which goes to the very foundation of the present appeal, viz. (i) that as to whether or not the Pr. CIT while exercising his revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act had rightly concluded that the subject land

SMT. SUSHILA DEVI JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 263 of the Act as had been looked into by the Hon’ble Courts deal with the two issues which goes to the very foundation of the present appeal, viz. (i) that as to whether or not the Pr. CIT while exercising his revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act had rightly concluded that the subject land

SAMPAT LAL JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 263 of the Act as had been looked into by the Hon’ble Courts deal with the two issues which goes to the very foundation of the present appeal, viz. (i) that as to whether or not the Pr. CIT while exercising his revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act had rightly concluded that the subject land

AARTI SPONGE AND POWER LTD.,RAIPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR - 1, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

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

capital gain, unexplained cash credit and short addition on account of commission received. These are the reasons, which led the learned Pr. CIT to initiate the proceedings under section 263

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

263 of the Act dated 02/03/2022 is illegal and void-ab-initio. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the revision order passed u/s.263 of the Act was passed on the premise that the appellant has claimed benefit of provisions of section 10(37) of the Act and provisions of RFCTLARR

MADANLAL LODHA,RAIPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: Ita 32/Rpr/2022 (Assessment Years:2017-18) Madanlal Lodha, V Pr. Commissioner Of Income Ta, C/O M/S Prakash Trading Comp. S Raipur-(I) Shop No. 109 & 110, Textile Market, Pandri, Raipur, (C.G.) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By : Shri R.B. Doshi, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By : Shri S.K. Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 03-08-2023 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20-10-2023

263 and in setting aside the assessment order. The assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The revision order is illegal, arbitrary, and not sustainable. 2 ii). Ld. Pr. CIT erred in setting aside the issue of taxability of capital gain arising on compulsory acquisition of land of appellant. The capital gain is not liable

BHARAT BENEFICATION & POWER PVT. LTD., RAIGARH,RAIGARH vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 336/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

section 263, the short synopsis submitted before us is extracted hereunder for the sake of clarity: Bharat Benefication & Power Pvt. Ltd., Raigarh AY 2018/19 Submission of assessee 1. Rs. 70 lakh Sky Alloys & Power Pvt. Ltd. i) Impugned assessment reopened on the issue of alleged bogus purchases from two parties. ii) In the reopened assessment, as per the settled

GHANSHYAM LAL, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K Panda & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.241/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Ghanshyam Lal Ward No.06, Chhatauna Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 222 Pan: Ajupl0084A ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1 (C.G.)

capital gain pertained to the sale transaction conducted by the assessee. That going through the entire assessment order, it is clear that such assessment has been done in a 7 Ghanshyam Lal Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 summary manner accepting the return income as well as the reply of the assessee. That on plain reading of Section 263

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

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

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

Section 105(3) of the RFCTLARR Act 2013, as per which only First, Second and Third schedules applied to the “Fourth Schedule” Acts. Based on his observations above, Pr. CIT held a conviction that as the A.O by failing to appreciate the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act 2013, had wrongly accepted the assessee’s claim for exemption of capital gain

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

Section 105(3) of the RFCTLARR Act 2013, as per which only First, Second and Third schedules applied to the “Fourth Schedule” Acts. Based on his observations above, Pr. CIT held a conviction that as the A.O by failing to appreciate the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act 2013, had wrongly accepted the assessee’s claim for exemption of capital gain

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

Section 105(3) of the RFCTLARR Act 2013, as per which only First, Second and Third schedules applied to the “Fourth Schedule” Acts. Based on his observations above, Pr. CIT held a conviction that as the A.O by failing to appreciate the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act 2013, had wrongly accepted the assessee’s claim for exemption of capital gain