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:

section 45(2) r.w.s. 2 (47)(v). Ultimate addition confirmed was for Rs. 42,34,074/- only, therefore, the addition made was not in conformity with the reasons recorded and, thus, in absence of reason to believe as mandated by law u/s 147, which is sine qua non for assuming valid jurisdiction to reopen the case, the reopening

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

42,96,423/- and claimed indexation cost was not in order. The profit from sale of land for Rs. 52,92,123/- (5937480 – 645357) without considering transfer expenses and benefit of indexation of acquisition of cost was required to be taxed as business income which was not found so. In view of provisions of section

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

42,96,423/- and claimed indexation cost was not in order. The profit from sale of land for Rs. 52,92,123/- (5937480 – 645357) without considering transfer expenses and benefit of indexation of acquisition of cost was required to be taxed as business income which was not found so. In view of provisions of section

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.

42,15,700/- respectively. Assessee was asked to explain as to why no capital gain is offered on the sale two properties and assessee submitted that the said properties which were sold were pieces of agricultural land. Profit on sale of these land have taken in the computation of income as exempt income and. therefore there is no liability

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

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

RAJINDER SINGH SADANA,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), RAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED FOR STATISTCAL PURPOSE in above terms

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 144/Rpr/2019 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 L/H Smt Paramjeet Kaur Sadana D-102, Jainam Plannet, Mandi Rd. Raipur – 492009, Chhattisgarh . . . . . . . अपीऱधर्थी / Appellant Pan: बनाम / V/S. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, . . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Circle 4(1), Raipur. द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By :Shri Veekaas S. Sharma :Shri Choudhary N.C. Roy Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 22/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 26/12/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Assailed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Raipur [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 21/03/2019 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Dove Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 30/01/2015 Passed U/S 143(3) By The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax

42,260/- arising out of long term capital gain and income from other sources. When the case was subjected to CASS, the assessee was put to notice to explain undisclosed taxable transaction of sale of land for ₹72,12,150/- and in the absence of evidential documents claiming exemption u/s 54F, the Ld. AO framed the assessment with an addition

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

MAYA DEVI AGRAWAL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(3), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed in terms of my observations above

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 193/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Maya Devi Agrawal Near Dena Bank, Dupan Para Kharora, Raipur (C.G.)-493 225 Pan : Acipa5876A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(3), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

capital gain (LTCG) of Rs.2,21,602/-]. Return of income filed by the assessee was processed as such u/s. 143(1) of the Act. 3. Original assessment was, thereafter, framed by the A.O. vide his order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 02.12.2010, wherein income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.4,42,070/- (including LTCG 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

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 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

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)

42 Taxmann.com 251 (Guj). When no addition could be made, order of AO cannot be termed to be erroneous or prejudicial. iii) Nothing brought on record b\ Id. Pr. CIT to show how the lender Angad Chemical Pvt. Ltd. is branded as shell company. Arbitrary and unsubstantiated allegation levelled. Lender being a private company, no question of it being regulated

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

gains, a capital receipt shall be outside the scope of section 4. 11. The distinction between capital and revenue is material and relevant both for taxation of income and for allowance of expenses and losses and therefore, determination of income from business or profession would necessarily include the ascertainment of the capital or the revenue nature of the receipt apart

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), RAIPUR vs. VIJAYSHREE FATS & OIL PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED , RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.49/Rpr/2018 Co No.02/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Vijayshree Fats & Oil Products Pvt. Ltd. Jawahar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aabcv2584Q ……""यथ" / Respondent

capital gain on sale of property?" 2. "Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Artex Manufacturing Co. [227 ITR 260(SC)] wherein it has been held that the possibility

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

42. The rationale for introduction of Section 43B was explained by this court in M.M. Aqua Technologies Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi:16 “19. The object of Section 43B, as originally enacted, is to allow certain deductions only on actual payment. This is made clear by the non- obstante Clause contained in the beginning of the provision, coupled

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

42. The rationale for introduction of Section 43B was explained by this court in M.M. Aqua Technologies Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi:16 “19. The object of Section 43B, as originally enacted, is to allow certain deductions only on actual payment. This is made clear by the non- obstante Clause contained in the beginning of the provision, coupled

CHHATTISGARH STATE POWER GENERATION CO. LTD.,RAIPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.16/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. O/O. Executive Director-Finance Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.24/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

capital expenditure by the A.O, which, therein, had been upheld by the CIT(Appeals) is primarily based on the fact that such approach was adopted by the A.O while framing assessment in the case of CSEB for years prior to A.Y.2009-10. We are of the considered view that now when in the case of CSEB for A.Y.2004-05 the matter

THE CHHATTISGARH STATE POWER GENERATION COMPANY LIMITED, RAIPUR,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(2),RAIPUR, RAIPUR (CG)

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.16/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. O/O. Executive Director-Finance Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.24/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

capital expenditure by the A.O, which, therein, had been upheld by the CIT(Appeals) is primarily based on the fact that such approach was adopted by the A.O while framing assessment in the case of CSEB for years prior to A.Y.2009-10. We are of the considered view that now when in the case of CSEB for A.Y.2004-05 the matter