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 Act, it was observed by the CIT(Appeals) that the said view of the A.O was based on a misconceived fact as the partnership firm i.e M/s Vicon Projects had not converted any asset into stock-in-trade of its business. It was further observed by the CIT (Appeals) that as the capital asset

DCIT,1(1), RAIPUR (CG) vs. SMT VIMLESH KUMAR SINGH, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member Dcit-1(1), Raipur Vs Late Shri Vijay Pal Singh, Through L/H Smt. Vimlesh Kumari Singh, Prop.M/S Manohar Engineering & M/S Sharda Engineering, Baikunth, District – Raipur Pan No. : Ahjps 0124 K (Appellant) .. Tsednepser Revenue By : Mrs. Shital Verma, Dr Assessee By : Shri K.P.Dewani, Ar Date Of Hearing : 10/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 15/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri N.S.Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Raipur, Dated 08.02.2013 For The Assessment Year 2006-2007. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :- “1. Whether In Law & On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,98,28,636/- Made By The Ao By Treating Long Term Capital Gain As Income From Undisclosed Sources.” 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Ao Observed That The Shares On Sale Of Which Ltcg Of Rs.1.95,39,611/- Was Shown & Exemption U/S.10(38) Of The Act Was Claimed Were Held Barely For Little More Than One Year To Qualify The Same As Long Term Capital Asset. The Cost Of The Shares Was Rs.2,69,400/- & Sale Consideration Was Rs.1,98,28,636/-. He

section 10(38) of the Act. We find that assessee has purchased the shares through off market deal and therefore such transaction for purchase of shares by the assessee ought not to have been registered with the Calcutta Stock Exchange. Secondly, the Voucher for shares sold to the assessee issued by M/s Badri Prasad & Sons, broker of the Calcutta Stock

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

SHRI RAMDEV MANDHANI, HUF,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 3(2), RAIPUR

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. 19/Rpr/2021 अपील िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Ramdev Mandhani Huf, Income Tax Officer-3(2), बनाम/ बनाम बनाम बनाम C-295, Shailendra Nagar, Raipur Vs. Raipur, Chhattisgarh - 492001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaghr 5208 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri R.B. Doshi, Ar 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 21.10.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश/O R D E R Per Pradip Kumar Kedia - Am:

capital gain amounting to 2,13,70,207/- 4. Hence, there is no application of mind on the part of the AO to correctly tax the income of the assessee in the return of income and therefore, the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest

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.

3. During the year under consideration, assessee has sold two pieces of land for sale consideration price of Rs.51,60,000/- and 14 Rahul Bajpai Vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur 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

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:

70,00,000/-, seven villas valued at Rs. 2,25,75,000/-, two flats valued at Rs. 53,87,200/- and two shops valued at Rs. 5,54,400/- totaling to Rs. 5,55,16,600/- as sale consideration and after deducting indexed acquisition cost of land at Rs. 1,58,39,316/- has computed Rs. 3

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

3 of 6 The Capital Gains arising to the assessee stands at Rs.41,85,879/- in respect of his share on sale of co-ownership land. The assessee claimed deduction under 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 Lakhs towards investment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), BILASPUR vs. MESERS NARMADA DRINKS PRIVATE LIMITED, BILASPUR

In the result ground No. 2 & 3 of the appeal of the revenue stands rejected

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 89/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs M/S Narmada Drinks Private Limited Circle-1(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Sirgitti Industrial Area, Tifra, Bilaspur Mahima Complex, Bilaspur (C.G.) (C.G.) Pan: Aaacn5880C (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.B. Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2023

capital and no borrowed funds were utilized for making investments. Regarding the sufficiency of own funds for making the investments in securities for Rs 40,62,00,00 for the year under consideration the appellant during the assessment and in appeal has placed relevant material on record. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court

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)

gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset by a person to a firm in which he is or becomes a partner or member, by way of capital contribution or otherwise, shall be chargeable to tax as his income of the previous year in which such transfer takes place and, for the purpose of section 48, the amount recorded

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)

70,00,000/- which was adjusted against the share issued to the assessee by M/s. Rashi Steel & Power Ltd. The assessee has considered the difference in sale consideration and cost of acquisition as its STCG from transaction of land and has claimed the CO No.10/RPR/18 exemption of entire amount of Rs.7,79,92,514/- on account of sale of agricultural

FIVE STARCONSTRUCTION COMPANY,BHILAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), BHILAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.45/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Five Star Construction Company Plot No.96-97, Light Industrial Area, Chawani Chowk, Bhilai (C.G)-490026 Pan : Aaaff4316L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

capital gain (LTCG) on sale of 18,98,410/- land by the assessee firm which was claimed as exempt. 10 Five Star Construction Company Vs. DCIT-1(1), Bhilai Accordingly, the A.O after making the aforesaid additions /disallowances vide his order passed under Sec.144 r.w.s. 143(3), dated 31.12.2016 assessed the income of the assessee firm

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR vs. USHA DEVI SINGHANIA, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.269 & 270/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

capital gains which the assessee failed to offer in ITR filed for the AY 2013-14. 3. Aggrieved by the said assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) raising several grounds of appeal. The FAA after considering all the aspects (factual and legal) of the case, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee subject

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. USHA DEVI SINGHANIA, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.269 & 270/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

capital gains which the assessee failed to offer in ITR filed for the AY 2013-14. 3. Aggrieved by the said assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) raising several grounds of appeal. The FAA after considering all the aspects (factual and legal) of the case, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee subject

GHANSHYAM LAL, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K Panda & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.241/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Ghanshyam Lal Ward No.06, Chhatauna Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 222 Pan: Ajupl0084A ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1 (C.G.)

70,000/- (+) Rs.10,90,000/- (+) Rs.37,08,200/-]. In this regard, it was observed by the Pr. CIT that Bodri is within the jurisdiction of the Bilaspur Municipality and therefore, lands sold fall within the Municipal limits of Bilaspur and accordingly, qualifies as capital asset u/s.2(14)(iii) (b) of the Act. It was therefore evident that all the transferred

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

70 of the paper book which is the submission before the A.O i.e. ITO, Ward-1, Raigarh, dated 27.12.2016, wherein at Para 4, the assessee had requested the A.O to refer the matter to the DVO and the same is extracted as follows: “4. The calculation of capital gain under 50 C of the act is not justified

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

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

3) of the Act vide order dated 20.12.2006 in which the Long Term Capital Gains declared by the assessee being earned on the sale of scrips was considered as a sham transaction and the LTCG was treated as income from undisclosed sources. 4. The matter travelled up to the Tribunal and the Tribunal restored the matter to the files

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

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 in her return of income but the same had also

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

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)

3. Commission income i) Difference of Rs. 69,03,735/- was on account of service tax, which is separately credited in books. Commission income was only Rs. 5,58,55,450/-. ii) Commission bill at PN 101 to 103 of PB. Ledger accounts of commission at PN 99 of PB, legder account of party at PN 100 of PB showing