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)

capital gain thereby completely ignoring the provisions as per section 45(3) of the IT act, 1961?" 2. "Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. Rs. 5,77,59,138/-, thereby not considering and not distinguishing the findings of the AO which

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

section 50 of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not incurred any actual loss rather had claimed deduction notional loss & CO No.14/RPR/18 merely making book entry which is disallowable u/s 37 of the Act?” 3. Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in giving

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

gain charged to tax. The Ld. CIT(A) considering the additional evidence and the ITAT-Raipur Page 3 of 6 L/H Smt Paramjeet Kaur Sadana ITA No.144/RPR/2019 AY: 2012-13 remand report, gave partial relief, however did not find force in the claim of capital loss as same being remained unclaimed in the ITR filed nor was disclosed during

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

DY. C.I.T.1(1), RAIPUR (CG) vs. SHRI MADANLAL LODHA, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Assessing Officer?" 2. Whether In Law & On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Claim Of Deduction U/S. 54B Of The It Act, 1961 Of Rs. 3,39,49,274/- As The Assessee Has Failed To Establish That Agricultural Operations Were Carried On, On The Said Land?" 3. "The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Erroneous Both In Law & On Facts." 4. "Any Other Ground That May Be Adduced At The Time Of Hearing." 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Ao Observed That The Assessee Had Sold The Land At Sejbahar, Raipur At Rs.3,94,20,000/- On Different Dates. The Assessee Had Claimed Exemption Of Capital Gain U/S.54B Of The Act For Rs.3,39,49,27/- As Under :-

section 54B Rs.3,39,49,274/- Income chargeable under the head “capital gains” Rs.18,16,110/- The assessee was asked to prove whether any agriculture activity was done on these plots in the last two years to check whether the assessee fulfils all the conditions for claiming exemption u/s.54B of the Act. 4. After making enquiry and considering the submissions

NEELAM MANDHANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.303/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Neelam Mandhani D-27, Shailendra Nagar, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Bgkpm2502A ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without properly appreciating the source of investment and documentary evidence submitted by the appellant. The addition has been sustained solely on presumptions and conjectures, which is unsustainable in law. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in affirming the order of the Assessing Officer (AO) without properly considering the submissions, documentary evidence

DCIT-1(1),BHILAI, BHILAI vs. SALIGRAM TRIPATHI, DURG

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.582/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.)

Capital Gain. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case in law, the ld. CIT Appeal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.4,57,774 on account of unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income Tax Act,1961. 3. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case

I.T.O. WARD -2(3), RAIPUR vs. SHRI CHAMPALAL PRAJAPATI, RAIPUR (CG)

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

46A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without there being any reasonable cause for the assessee not to have produced before the Assessing Officer. 2 Assessment Year : 2009-2010 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,40,556/- made by the AO on account of applying

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. MARUTI CLEAN COAL AND POWER LIMITED, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआयकर अपील सं. /It(Ss)A No.19/Rpr/2025 Co No.19/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur (C.G.) ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Maruti Clean Coal & Power Limited 8Th Floor, Cbd Complex, Sector-21, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Raipur-492 018 Pan: Aadcm4810C ……""यथ" / Respondent

46A(2), for admission of such additional evidences that too without providing any opportunity to the A.O whatsoever? 4. At the very outset, the Ld. CIT-DR submitted that they are not pressing Ground of appeal No.2 and 4. After hearing the submissions of the Ld. CIT-DR, the Ground of appeal Nos.2 and 4 are dismissed as not pressed