SHRI RAMDEV MANDHANI, HUF,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 3(2), RAIPUR

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. 19/Rpr/2021 अपील िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Ramdev Mandhani Huf, Income Tax Officer-3(2), बनाम/ बनाम बनाम बनाम C-295, Shailendra Nagar, Raipur Vs. Raipur, Chhattisgarh - 492001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaghr 5208 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri R.B. Doshi, Ar 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 21.10.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश/O R D E R Per Pradip Kumar Kedia - Am:

35,500/-. The case was selected for scrutiny on the reasons for verification of large deductions claimed under Section 54-B, 54-C, 54-D, 54-G of the Act and whether deductions from capital gains

SHRI KETAN MOOLCHAND SHAH,BHILAI(CG) vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-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

SHRI SHRI KETAN MOOLCHAND SHAH, BHILAI,BHILAI(CG) vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,-2(1),BHILAI, 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

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

capital gains’ in departure with its true nature as business income. 4. It will be apt to reproduce the show cause notice for easy reference:- “NOTICE FOR THE HEARING M/s/Mr/Ms Subject: Notice for Hearing in respect of Revision proceedings u/s 263 of the THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 – Assessment Year 2016-17. In this regard, a hearing in the matter

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

capital gains’ in departure with its true nature as business income. 4. It will be apt to reproduce the show cause notice for easy reference:- “NOTICE FOR THE HEARING M/s/Mr/Ms Subject: Notice for Hearing in respect of Revision proceedings u/s 263 of the THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 – Assessment Year 2016-17. In this regard, a hearing in the matter

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)

section 147 of the IT Act. and has reopened the assessment in the case of assessee initiating the proceedings u/s 147 of the IT Act. To oppose the contention of the Ld AO in reopening the assessment, Ld AR further drew our attention to page 35,36 of the paper book and had shown the computation of the assessee

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

VIVRN FOODS PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.364/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2024-25 Vivrn Foods Private Limited C/O. Rajkumar Mundra, Village-Sarona, Raipur-492 009 (C.G.) Pan: Aahcv4005G

gains derived from transfer of a capital asset on which no depreciation is allowable under the Act shall be computed at the rate of twenty-two per cent: Provided also that where the person fails to satisfy the conditions contained in sub-section (2) in any previous year, the option shall become invalid in respect of the assessment year relevant

RAM BHUVAN YADAV, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.325/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Ram Bhuvan Yadav Villa No.Cb-3, Romanceque, G.E. Road, Labhandih, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Abbpy6681R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

gain. The assessee had sold the land admeasuring 0.405 hectare located at Mathpuraina, Raipur through registered conveyance deed dated 27.08.2012 against aggregate consideration of Rs.42,00,000/-. The A.O made addition of Rs.18,75,000/- solely on account of difference between value adopted for stamp duty purpose and the sale consideration. In other words, the addition was made

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

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 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

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

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 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

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 (d) income from other sources; And who fall within the territorial jurisdiction of the Raipur District beyond the municipal limits and Birgaon Nagar Palika. (2) All companies and their directors having registered office or principal place of business falling within the territorial jurisdiction of Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur and Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(3), BHILAI, BHILAI vs. RAMANDEEP SINGH SOHI, DURG

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.268/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 The Income Tax Officer-1(3), Bhilai (C.G.)

capital gain u/s 69A.” 7. In this regard, the Ld. Sr. DR has fairly conceded that the matter may be adjudicated denovo on merits before the first appellate authority providing one final opportunity to the assessee. The Ld. Sr. DR further submitted that though the tax effect involved in the present case is Rs.15,713/- which is below the monetary

MANISH SHUKLA,RAIGARH(CG) vs. ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -1(1), BILASPUR(CG)

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

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

gain is not in dispute ITA Nos. 03 & 05/RPR/2013 3 . A.Y. 2008-09 but the dispute is related to the admissibility of exemption u/s. 54B of the Act on investment made in purchase of agricultural land. The ld. CIT(A) was of the opinion that as per the provisions of Section 54B of the Act, the assessee has not shown

I.T.O. WARD -1(1), RAIPUR (CG) vs. M/S CMDC ICPL COAL LTD,, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2011-12 Ito, Ward- 1(1), Cmdc Icpl Coal Ltd., Raipur (Cg). Rajbandha Maidan, G. E. Road, Vs. Raipur (Cg).

gains, a capital receipt shall be outside the scope of section 4. 10. While determining the nature of a receipt as being a trading receipt taxable as income from business or profession or otherwise, one should be guided by the terms of the agreement genuinely entered into between the parties. The Revenue authorities cannot ignore the genuine agreements

DY.C.I.T. 1(2), RAIPUR (CG) vs. M/S RISHABH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

section 143(3) of the I. T. Act for the A.Y.2003-04. We find from records that the assessee had only acquired a part of the lands (including some development works) required for the said railway track and siding which were subsequently transferred to LIPL and income arising thereof was shown under the head “Profits & Gains of Business or Profession

SHIKHAR CHAND JAIN, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 555/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shikhar Chand Jain Gali No.3, Ashok Vihar Colony, Near Bansal School, Pandri, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Achpj2931Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

35 did not require participation of the assessee and therefore could not have been summarily dismissed that to without dealing with the said Legal Grounds anywhere in the body of the impugned order u/s. 250 dated 30.08.’23 which renders the order u/s. 250 dated 30.08.’23 to be-suffering from mistake apparent from records and rectifiable u/s.154, hence