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

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:

55,16,600/- Expenses : Rs. 43,210/- -------------------------------------------------- Total Income : Rs. 5,54,73390/- 7 I.T.A. No.173/RPR/2019 CO No. 26/RPR/2019 4.2 Aggrieved with the aforementioned addition and the order of Ld. AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), wherein assessee’s contentions pertaining to the addition made on account of assumption of invalid jurisdiction u/s 47 and also

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)

Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 because of the defective title and as a result the assessee was not holding any asset and hence, investment could not be construed as a capital asset based on the dictum that no one can give a title better than what he himself has. 8. Can an amount be taxed merely

SMT BUDHAREEN BAI,BHATAPARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, BHATAPARA

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Budhia Reen Bai, Ito, Near Shitala Mandir, Bhatapara (Cg). Hathanipara Ward, Vs. Bhatapara (Cg) – 493118. Pan : Bxxpb0771Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vikash Sharma, Adv. Department By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 13-05-2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-05-2019 O R D E R Per Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Am :

Section 55 of the I.T. Act. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to get exemption u/s 54F in respect of investment of Rs.35.00 lakhs made by the assessee in the construction of residential house property. Hence, it is prayed that the exemption u/s 54F may kindly be allowed. 7. The Appellant

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

55,34,750/- as per provisions of 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

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

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

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

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).

gain derived from the business of generation of power and consequently, eligible for deduction u/s 80-IA(4) of the I.T. Act. Relying on various decisions including the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Fenner (India) Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 241 ITR 803, decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RAIPUR (CG) vs. SHRI RAJKUMAR RATHI, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 125/Rpr/2016 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Rajkumar Rathi, Kawardha Bada, Opp. Surya Apartment, Katora Talab, Raipur (C.G.) Pin-492001 Pan: Aappr0032A ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri R.B. Doshi, Adv. Revenue By : Shri A.K. Laskar, Jcit

55,000 2010-11 60,825 2011-12 20,425 Assessee has returned this agricultural income in the computation of total income for above three years. ITR and computations of total income for above years are enclosed herewith for ready reference. Copy of „Kirayedari ka anubandh‟ for the accounting year 2009-10, 20010-11 and 20111-12 are also enclosed

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)

capital gain at the rate or 20%. Therefore, no prejudice was caused to the Revenue. Similar contention was raised by the assessee by submitting reply to the notice under section 263 of the Act, however, the explanation of the assessee was not found to be acceptable by the learned Pr. CIT in absence of furnishing of any document in support

SATYA POWER AND ISPAT LTD.,BILASPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A. Nos.51 & 52/Rpr/2021 अपील िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14) (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Satya Power & Ispat Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ बनाम बनाम बनाम First Floor, V R Plaza, Income-Tax, Vs. Link Road, Central Circle-2, Bilaspur-495001 (Cg) Raipur "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahcs 4472 N .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Amit Maloo Jain, Ca अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : 30.07.2021 सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing 29.09.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश/O R D E R Per Pradip Kumar Kedia - Am:

Section 10(38) of the Act in the wake of the fact that such LTCG was earned by purchase and sale of ITA Nos.51 & 52/RPR/2021 Satya Power and Ispat Ltd Vs. DCIT AY : 2012-13 & 2013-14 shares of Regency Trust Ltd. which is branded as penny stock company. The capital gains arose on such transactions of Regency Trust

SATYA POWER AND ISPAT LTD.,BILASPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A. Nos.51 & 52/Rpr/2021 अपील िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14) (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Satya Power & Ispat Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ बनाम बनाम बनाम First Floor, V R Plaza, Income-Tax, Vs. Link Road, Central Circle-2, Bilaspur-495001 (Cg) Raipur "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahcs 4472 N .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Amit Maloo Jain, Ca अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : 30.07.2021 सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing 29.09.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश/O R D E R Per Pradip Kumar Kedia - Am:

Section 10(38) of the Act in the wake of the fact that such LTCG was earned by purchase and sale of ITA Nos.51 & 52/RPR/2021 Satya Power and Ispat Ltd Vs. DCIT AY : 2012-13 & 2013-14 shares of Regency Trust Ltd. which is branded as penny stock company. The capital gains arose on such transactions of Regency Trust

KAMLESH JAIN & SONS HUF,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(2), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

capital gain. The construction of the residential house was completed on 18.06.2017 whereas the land parcels were sold in March 2016. It was submitted that the very issue was subjected to requisite enquiry by the A.O. vide notice dated 11.10.2018 and 03.12.2018. In the course of the assessment, the A.O. was eventually satisfied with the eligibility of the deduction under

GANPAT SAHU,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(5) , RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 61/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ganpat Sahu S/O. Late Shri Sattusahu, Dabripara, Near Krishna Public School, Village-Dunda, P.O. Sejbahar, Raipur (C.G.)-492015 Pan : Fzxps0022R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-4(5), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act, therefore, the consideration received on the sale of the same was exigible to capital gain tax in his hands. The aforesaid factual position was further fortified by the A.O on the basis of a report dated 20.12.2016 that was obtained by him u/s.133(6) of the Act from the Patwari, wherein

HARSHDEEP SINGH JUNEJA,RAIPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 106/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Harshdeep Singh Juneja 21/537, Katora Talab Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Acupj6153B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

55 taxmann.com 412, even though the facts of the case are distinguishable. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not following the decision of Hon'ble Kolkata Tribunal in the case of M/s Bolkunda Packwai & (S) C vs ITO, Ward 1(1), Asansol (ITA No. 462-463/Kol/2016), where

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

55,114/- on total income instead of tax calculated by the assessee @ 15% on the total income. The assessee has reported in the ITR that it has opted taxation under the provision of section 115BAB of the Act and filed Form No.10ID on 21.09.2024 for the A.Y. 2024-25. 3. The assessee submitted that the company was incorporated

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)-1, RAIPUR vs. M/S. CHHATTISGARH STEEL & POWER LIMITED, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 96/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

capital of Rs.41 crore and reserves & surplus of Rs.15.74 crore aggregating to Rs.56.74 crore which were more than the investment made by it in exempt dividend income yielding shares, therefore, no disallowance of any part of interest expenditure was called for in its case. Ld. AR in support of her aforesaid contention that no disallowance u/s.14A can be made