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:

27-3-17 has accepted the capital gain as claimed by the assessee from the sale of ancestral property. Subsequently, the Id PCIT has exercised its revisionary power u/s263 and issued SCNdt.3-1-19 as under: "During the relevant period, you had sold your ancestral property and got your share amounting to Rs, 1,08,28,148 whereon you had computed

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), RAIPUR vs. MESERSS T.C. BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR

In the result CO filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assistant Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Tc Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 1(1) Vasudev, B-5, Sector-5, Raipur, (C.G.) Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aacct4516F Cross Objection No. 26/Rpr/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 173/Rpr/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Tc Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 1(1) Vasudev, B-5, Sector-5, Raipur, (C.G.) Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aacct4516F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 16-08-2023 घोषणाक" तार"ख/Date : 27-10-2023 Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am:

27-10-2023 of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, AM: The captioned appeal is filed by the Revenue in ITA No. 173/RPR/2019 and the Cross Objection is filed by the assessee in CO No. 26/RPR/2019, against the order of Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Raipur, dated 04/04/2019, arising out of the order

DILIP SANGOI,RAIPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17

gains there from was liable for taxation as business income whether from sale of agriculture land or non-agriculture land. It is apparent from the record that the intention of the assessee was not to perform any agricultural activity on the land and investment in agriculture land. The intent and purpose for purchasing the land, after conversion of land

ARVIND SANGOI,RAIPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17

gains there from was liable for taxation as business income whether from sale of agriculture land or non-agriculture land. It is apparent from the record that the intention of the assessee was not to perform any agricultural activity on the land and investment in agriculture land. The intent and purpose for purchasing the land, after conversion of land

MADHU GOYAL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.496/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Madhu Goyal D-36, Wallfort City, Bhatagaon, Raipur-492 001 (C.G) Pan: Aeypg1038E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

27,878/- made by A.O by invoking the provision of section 68 of IT Act on account of long term capital gain

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

capital gain. Such observation of the ld. CIT(A) was alleged by the department as erroneous on facts and bad in law, therefore, the department has filed this appeal to represent its case before the Tribunal. 8. Ld. CIT-DR at the outset, reiterated the facts of the case. It was the submission of the ld. CIT-DR that impairment

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 receipt in view of judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional ITAT in ACIT vs. Shree Nakoda Ispat Ltd. – I.T.A. No.109/BLPR/2011, 5 C.O. No.12/RPR/2018 and therefore, not liable to tax. The A.O. has erred in holding it and thereby taxing it as revenue receipt.” 6. So far as ground of appeal no.(a)(i) by Revenue is concerned, the facts

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-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.)

27 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 which was later withdrawn by the assessee as evident from the order sheet entry dated 19.09.2025 for both the assessment years i.e. A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20. 4. First, we would take up the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No.151/RPR/2025 for A.Y.2018-19 for adjudication wherein grounds of appeal raised

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.)

27 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 which was later withdrawn by the assessee as evident from the order sheet entry dated 19.09.2025 for both the assessment years i.e. A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20. 4. First, we would take up the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No.151/RPR/2025 for A.Y.2018-19 for adjudication wherein grounds of appeal raised

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

MOHAMMED YUSUF,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD - 3(1), RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.147/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2012-13 Mohd. Yusuf Ward No.27, Dabari Para, Mova, Raipur-492 009 (C.G.) Pan : Acfpy4817N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

capital gain (LTCG) on sale of the aforesaid property under consideration under Section 50C of the Act at Rs.3,27

M/S M/S GOYAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RAIPUR,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, 3(1),RAIPUR, RAIPUR (CG)

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 17/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Goyal Construction Company Shop No.213-214, Ii Floor, Crystal Arcade, Lodhipara Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaffg9964N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

Capital gain and/or (e) income from other sources; And who fall within the territorial jurisdiction of following Municipal wards of Raipur Ward-26 Ward-27 Ward-28 Ward-29 Ward-32 Ward-33 Ward-45 Ward-46 3. All companies and their directors having registered office or principal place of business falling within the territorial jurisdiction of Income Tax Officer

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

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

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 on the transfer of the lands, therefore, the same had rendered his A.Y.2017-18 order as erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue u/s.263 of the Act for the following reasons: “1. Section 10 (37) is not applicable in case of the company assessee as it applies to individual and HUF only