DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1), RAIPUR vs. SHRI VARUN JAIN , RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 221/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Varun Jain 22-B, South Avenue, Choubey Colony, Raipur (C.G.). Pan : Aggpj1319R ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 222/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Vaibhav Jain 22-B, South Avenue, Choubey Colony, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Akbps4207Q ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By :Shri Amit M Jain, Ar Revenue By :Shri Sanjay Sharma, Sr. Dr

section 45(3) of the I.T. Act? 2. Whether on the facts of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the capital gains of Rs.18,61,74,000/- arising out of the transfer of the capital asset to firm as capital contribution in its original value and revalued it at Rs.19,04,79,000/- immediately

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-3(1), RAIPUR vs. SHRI RAKESH SINGH, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.231/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Acit-3(1), Raipur Vs Shri Rakesh Singh, A-4, Mahaveer Singh, Tagore Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan No. : Acwps 6453 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. Dr ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

section 54 cannot be allowable. Finally, being dissatisfied, the AO disallowed Rs.2,11,95,096/- the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s.54 of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 5. Being aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) allowed the appeal

SURESH CHAND SURANA,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4(1), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 25/Rpr/2021) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17)

Capital Gain Account Scheme. Further, the assessee has made investment of Rs. 50,00,000/- u/s 54EC on specified bond (REC bond). Thus, after considering all the facts and relevant documents available on record the returned income at Rs. 89,40,440/- is accepted. 2. On perusal of the I&CI report of the DIT (I&CI), Bhopal received through

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:

50% i.e. Rs. 34,02,700/-. This property was a part of the residential project "Banyan Tree Enclave" at Shankar Nagar, Raipur. The assessee had entered into joint venture on 28.12.2006 with M/s Biltech Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (AACCB2418A) for development of 1.977 Hectares of land situated at Shankar Nagar, Raipur. As per Clause-25 of the Joint development agreement

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

50 of the Income Tax Act deals with capital gains arising out of the sale of depreciable assets. As per the provision of that section

RAJESH CHAND SURANA,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 54F of the Act by utilisation of sale consideration to the extent of deposit of Rs.1.50 Crores in Capital Gain Account Scheme and Rs. 50

M/S. RAJENDRA NATHANI (HUF),RAIPUR (CG) vs. ITO- 1(2),, RAIPUR (CG)

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2010-11 Rajendra Nathani (Huf), Ito- 1(2), H-100, I-6, Rajiv Nagar, Raipur (Cg). Shankar Nagar, Vs. Raipur (Cg).

capital gain. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds :- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned A.O. has erred on facts and in law in substituting the actual consideration of Rs.15,00,000/- with value adopted for stamp

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

section 50C of the Act being 50% of total cost of acquisition of Rs.3,10,,69,500/-. Since the assessee has shown Rs.10,80,400/- as short term capital gain

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

SUNITHA NAIR, PALAKKAD,PALAKKAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.125/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12

section 2(14) of the Act. The A.O also observed that since no details in respect of purchase of the subject property were available, therefore, no deduction for cost of acquisition was allowed. Accordingly, the A.O calculated the Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) as under: “Sale Consideration : Rs.45,00,000/- Assessee’s share of sale consideration : Rs.22,50

MAHESH SHRIVASTAVA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO-3(1),RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 702/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2008-09) Vs Mahesh Shrivastava, Income Tax Officer-3(1), House No. 6, Phase-Ii, Office Of The Income Tax Office, Harsh Vihar Colony, Daldalshivni Central Revenue Building Civil Road, Mowa, Raipur-492007, C.G. Lines, Raipur-492001, C.G. Pan: Bqfps6242G .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Shri Veekaas S Sharma, Ca िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : 05.01.2026 सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 05.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2008-09 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.09.2025 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

Section 54F as the actual sale consideration amounting to Rs.21,75,000/- (being 1/6th of Rs.1,30,50,000/-) stood reinvested entirely which 1 Mahesh Shrivastava vs. ITO, Ward-3(1) entitles the assesse for exemption u/s 54F from whole amount of Long Term Capital Gain

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

50 C of the act is not justified on the basis of the fact that the property is limited to 3 Shrikant Somawar Vs. ITO-1, Raigarh (C.G.) restricted sale/purchase transactions because the karta happens to belong to scheduled tribe, hence affecting the market value of the property considerably. Therefore, the value at which the transaction was executed

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.2,61,50

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.2,61,50

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.2,61,50

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

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

50,464/- Add: As discussed in para-2 above. Rs. 70,000/- Total income Rs.2,20,464/- Long-Term Capital Gains Rs.2,21,602//- 11. Based on the aforesaid factual position, it transpires that the transaction of sale of property under consideration a/w. complete details of the cost of acquisition and improvement had not only been disclosed by the assessee

MOHAMMAD AKHTAR KHAN,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), BHILAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩलसं. / Ita No. 87/Rpr/2019 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-2014 Mohammad Akhtar Khan Ibrahim Bada, Nr Masjid Titurdih, Raipur, (C.G.) . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(1), Bhilai (C.G.) . . . . . . .प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri R. B. Doshi Revenue By : Shri Gitesh Kumar सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 16/11/2022 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 16/11/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Assessee By The Present Appeal Challenges The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Raipur [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 26/04/2017 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] Confirming The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1) Raipur [For Short “Ao”] For The Assessment Year 2013-14 [For Short “Ay”] 2. The Grounds Raised In The Appeal Memo Are;

capital gain in the hands of the appellant alone. The addition made by the AO is excessive and unreasonable”. 4. The facts borne out of the records are; 4.1 The assessee is an individual and a commission agent maintaining regular books of account u/s 44AA which are subjected to audit u/s 44AB of the ITAT-Raipur Page