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

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, RAIGARH vs. M/S SUMIT GLOBAL PVT. LTD, RAIGARH

In the result appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

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

gain. The Tribunal may come to its independent conclusion that the sale was genuine on facts but it has to take into consideration the material placed before it. If the sale deed is held to be final, the income-tax authorities will be debarred from looking into as to how much sale consideration passed under the transaction outside

SHRI SHAILESH ARVIND SHAH,BHILAI(CG) vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(1), BHILAI(CG)

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2008-2009 Assessment Year: 2010-2011

section 2(14) and the gain on transfer thereof is assessable to capital gains. The finding recorded by the AO and CIT(A) is incorrect and contrary to provisions of law. The addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) is not justified. 2. Ld CIT(A) erred in recording erroneous finding and concluding that the amount

DY.C.I.T. 1 vs. SMT SANGEETA CHAWLA, BHILAI(CG)

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

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2011-2012

capital gain not be worked out considering the sale value as per provision of section 50C of the I.T.Act. In reply the assessee stated that the value adopted for stamp 4 Assessment Year : 2011-2012 duty purpose is exorbitantly high and is not representing fair market value of the property. The Assessing Officer observed that the fair market value

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, the claim is not allowable. The learned AO drew our attention to pages 6 & 7 of the order of learned CIT(A), wherein, at para 3.2, assessee’s submissions were extracted, the same are reproduced hereunder for the sake of clarity: i) Appellant was in the process of hiving off one of its production division (ingot mould division

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

section 10(37) r.w. RECTLARR Act, 2013, therefore, there was no basis for the Pr. CIT to have held the order passed by the A.O u/s.143(3) dated 15.11.2019 as erroneous on the ground that he had wrongly allowed the assessee’s claim for exemption of capital gain under RECTLARR Act, 2013. 7. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative

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 under the Act of 1956 and paid tax to the tune of ₹ 24,30,521/- which was processed by the Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru and intimation order was issued exercising powers under Section 143(1)(a) of the IT Act wherein total income

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

SHRIKANT SOMAWAR, RAIGARH,RAIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, RAIGARH, RAIGARH

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.589/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shrikant Somawar Prop. Raigarh Gas Service, Gouri Shankar Mandir Road, Raigarh (C.G.)-496 001 Pan: Ajfps7436J ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1, Raigarh (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

capital gain under section 50C is not justified on the basis of the fact that the property 4 Shrikant Somawar Vs. ITO-1, Raigarh (C.G.) is limited to restricted sale/purchase transactions because the assessee belong to scheduled tribe, hence affecting the market value of the property considerable. The contention of the assessee is not acceptable due to the fact that

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

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

ANISH VISHNOI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.764/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Anish Vishnoi New Bus Stand Baloda Bazar, Baloda Bazar S.O., Raipur (C.G.)-493 332 Pan: Aeapv0087J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

Gain, by considering the land at Village Magarchaba as Capital Asset and taking the total sale consideration at Rs.34,12,620/- instead of Rs.17,28,000/- with a direction to AO to consider the actual Cost of Acquisition of Land despite acknowledging and accepting the submissions made by the appellant that agricultural land is rural agricultural land

CHHATTISGARH STATE POWER TRANSMISSION COMPANY LTD,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4(1), RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.81/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd. Executive Director (Fin.), Csptcl, Second Floor, Sldc Building, Cseb Office Campus, Danginiya Raipur-492 013 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5773E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

gains. Under Section 2(24)(x), any sum received by the assessee from his employees as contributions to any provident fund/superannuation fund or any fund set up under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, or any other fund for the welfare of such employees constituted income. This is the reason why every assessee(s) M.M. Aqua Technologies Ltd. vs. Commissioner

CHHATTISGARH STATE POWER TRANSMISSION COMPANY LIMITED,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.81/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd. Executive Director (Fin.), Csptcl, Second Floor, Sldc Building, Cseb Office Campus, Danginiya Raipur-492 013 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5773E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

gains. Under Section 2(24)(x), any sum received by the assessee from his employees as contributions to any provident fund/superannuation fund or any fund set up under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, or any other fund for the welfare of such employees constituted income. This is the reason why every assessee(s) M.M. Aqua Technologies Ltd. vs. Commissioner

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain. The Ld AO has relied upon the investigation report of investigation wing, Calcutta and suspension of trading of Sunbright Stock Broking Ltd due to surveillance measures, the same aspect has further demonstrated by the AO by affixing screen shots of the suspension of the said company on account surveillance by the SEBI. Contention of the AO was accepted