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 :

57. Thereafter, I took help of my distant relative basically son of my sister and started searching for appropriate counsel for representing my case and filing appeal before the Hon’ble Bench against the order of the first appellate authority. The entire exercise took considerable period of time as my relatives are also not very much literate and are living

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

capital gain under section 50C is not justified on the basis of the fact that the property 4 Shrikant Somawar Vs. ITO-1, Raigarh (C.G.) is limited to restricted sale/purchase transactions because the assessee belong to scheduled tribe, hence affecting the market value of the property considerable. The contention of the assessee is not acceptable due to the fact that

THE DY. CIT-1(1),, RAIPUR (CG) vs. RAKESH SARAOGI & SONI (HUF),, RAIPUR (CG)

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

Capital Gains from the sale of the impugned scrips was treated as income from undisclosed sources. 11. In his statement and the related enquiries, there is nothing on record to suggest that the brokers have given accommodation entries to the assessee. Nor there is any reference to the transactions done by the assessee. The A.O. has simply presumed that

ANISH VISHNOI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.764/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Anish Vishnoi New Bus Stand Baloda Bazar, Baloda Bazar S.O., Raipur (C.G.)-493 332 Pan: Aeapv0087J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

Gain, by considering the land at Village Magarchaba as Capital Asset and taking the total sale consideration at Rs.34,12,620/- instead of Rs.17,28,000/- with a direction to AO to consider the actual Cost of Acquisition of Land despite acknowledging and accepting the submissions made by the appellant that agricultural land is rural agricultural land

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

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

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

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

57,280/- i.e. as was originally returned. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O observed that the assessee while computing the income under the head Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on sale of the subject property, had, inter alia, raised claim for deduction of cost of improvement aggregating to Rs.9.75 lacs, viz. (i) improvement carried out during

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 :-

capital gain u/s.54B of the Act for Rs.3,39,49,27/- as under :- 2 Full value of consideration of sale property Rs.4,19,90,001/- Deduction u/s.48 Rs.62,24,618/- Balance Rs.3,57,65,383/- Exemption under section

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

capital, personal, advertisement expenditure etc. (d) Disallowance/deemed income under section 40A(3) (A) On the basis of the examination of books of account and other No. relevant documents/evidence, whether the expenditure covered under section 40A(3) read with rule 6DD were made by the account payee cheque drawn on a bank or account payee bank draft. If not, please furnish

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.

57,01,712/- 2,33,14,816/- (c) Less : Deprn. @7.5%/5% (-)1,46,77,628/- (-)11,65,741/- (d) Amount of addition 18,10,24,084/- 2,21,49,075/- Total Addition Rs.20,31,73,159/- Accordingly, on the basis of his aforesaid deliberations the A.O vide his order passed u/s.143(3) dated 30.12.2011 scaled down the loss

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.

57,01,712/- 2,33,14,816/- (c) Less : Deprn. @7.5%/5% (-)1,46,77,628/- (-)11,65,741/- (d) Amount of addition 18,10,24,084/- 2,21,49,075/- Total Addition Rs.20,31,73,159/- Accordingly, on the basis of his aforesaid deliberations the A.O vide his order passed u/s.143(3) dated 30.12.2011 scaled down the loss

PANKAJ KUMAR AGRAWAL,,BILASPUR(CG) vs. ITO, WARD- 1(1),, BILASPUR(CG)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.30/Rpr/2014 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Pankaj Kumar Agrawal, Prop. Puja Enterprises, Mission Hospital Road, Bilaspur (Cg) Pan : Abdpa3986H …....अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Bilaspur (Cg) ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri R.B. Doshi Revenue By : Shri D.K. Jain

section 48 of the Act, the Assessing Officer denied the exemption claimed and assessed the sum as income of the assessee for the year under consideration. The long term capital gain of Rs.23,05,328/- claimed as exemption in the return of income was rejected by the Assessing Officer and added the same to the total income of the assessee

SMT. TILOTTAMA JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Capital gain account 5. Details of the residential house owned by you at the time of transfer of the asset.” (emphasis supplied by us) In reply, we find that the assessee vide his submission filed/uploaded with the A.O on 08.04.2023, had rebutted the aforesaid adverse inferences that were sought to be drawn based on the report on the satellite data

SMT. PUSHPA JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Capital gain account 5. Details of the residential house owned by you at the time of transfer of the asset.” (emphasis supplied by us) In reply, we find that the assessee vide his submission filed/uploaded with the A.O on 08.04.2023, had rebutted the aforesaid adverse inferences that were sought to be drawn based on the report on the satellite data

SANJOG JHABAK L/H OF LATE GAUTAM CHAND JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Capital gain account 5. Details of the residential house owned by you at the time of transfer of the asset.” (emphasis supplied by us) In reply, we find that the assessee vide his submission filed/uploaded with the A.O on 08.04.2023, had rebutted the aforesaid adverse inferences that were sought to be drawn based on the report on the satellite data

SMT. SUSHILA DEVI JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Capital gain account 5. Details of the residential house owned by you at the time of transfer of the asset.” (emphasis supplied by us) In reply, we find that the assessee vide his submission filed/uploaded with the A.O on 08.04.2023, had rebutted the aforesaid adverse inferences that were sought to be drawn based on the report on the satellite data

SANKET JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Capital gain account 5. Details of the residential house owned by you at the time of transfer of the asset.” (emphasis supplied by us) In reply, we find that the assessee vide his submission filed/uploaded with the A.O on 08.04.2023, had rebutted the aforesaid adverse inferences that were sought to be drawn based on the report on the satellite data