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 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee submitted his reply and furnished evidence in support of his claim of long-term capital gain. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee failed to lead evidence to support his claim of long-term capital gain and considered the amount of Rs.1,74

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:

74,670/-. The return so filed was selected for “limited scrutiny’ assessment under CASS and consequently notices under Section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued. In the course of the assessment, the Assessing Officer found that the actual sale consideration of land parcels shown as business assets/stock-in-trade in the books of accounts is lesser than the corresponding value assessable

DILIP SANGOI,RAIPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

capital gains’ in departure with its true nature as business income. 4. It will be apt to reproduce the show cause notice for easy reference:- “NOTICE FOR THE HEARING M/s/Mr/Ms Subject: Notice for Hearing in respect of Revision proceedings u/s 263 of the THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 – Assessment Year 2016-17. In this regard, a hearing in the matter

ARVIND SANGOI,RAIPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

capital gains’ in departure with its true nature as business income. 4. It will be apt to reproduce the show cause notice for easy reference:- “NOTICE FOR THE HEARING M/s/Mr/Ms Subject: Notice for Hearing in respect of Revision proceedings u/s 263 of the THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 – Assessment Year 2016-17. In this regard, a hearing in the matter

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 271(1) (c) are separately initiated for concealment of income. 3.2 Appellant’s submission- …. During the year under consideration assessee had sold a property situated at Hathnipara, Bhatapara admeasuring 0.154 hect at amount to Rs. 48 lakhs, the land was actually belong to the name of her husband since 1970 after death of her husband

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

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).

74,960/-. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee is related to one business concern namely M/s. Aarti Infrastructure & Buildcon Ltd. which is a company engaged in construction and sale of flats/shops, sale of lands and execution of government contracts. The assessee was a Director of said M/s. Aarti Infrastructure & Buildcon Limited then

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).

74,960/-. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee is related to one business concern namely M/s. Aarti Infrastructure & Buildcon Ltd. which is a company engaged in construction and sale of flats/shops, sale of lands and execution of government contracts. The assessee was a Director of said M/s. Aarti Infrastructure & Buildcon Limited then

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).

74,960/-. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee is related to one business concern namely M/s. Aarti Infrastructure & Buildcon Ltd. which is a company engaged in construction and sale of flats/shops, sale of lands and execution of government contracts. The assessee was a Director of said M/s. Aarti Infrastructure & Buildcon Limited then

I.T.O. WARD -1(1), RAIPUR (CG) vs. M/S CMDC ICPL COAL LTD,, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2011-12 Ito, Ward- 1(1), Cmdc Icpl Coal Ltd., Raipur (Cg). Rajbandha Maidan, G. E. Road, Vs. Raipur (Cg).

gains, a capital receipt shall be outside the scope of section 4. 10. While determining the nature of a receipt as being a trading receipt taxable as income from business or profession or otherwise, one should be guided by the terms of the agreement genuinely entered into between the parties. The Revenue authorities cannot ignore the genuine agreements

M/S ASHTA VINAYAK ESTATE, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 16 & 17/Rpr/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2016-17)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), for the Assessment Year 2016-17, which in turn arises from the order u/s 144 of the M/s Ashta Vinayak Estate and M/s Ashta Vinayak Farms Vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur Act, passed by Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur, (in short

M/S ASHTA VINAYAK FARMS, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 16 & 17/Rpr/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2016-17)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), for the Assessment Year 2016-17, which in turn arises from the order u/s 144 of the M/s Ashta Vinayak Estate and M/s Ashta Vinayak Farms Vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur Act, passed by Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur, (in short

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.

capital expenditure by the A.O, which, therein, had been upheld by the CIT(Appeals) is primarily based on the fact that such approach was adopted by the A.O while framing assessment in the case of CSEB for years prior to A.Y.2009-10. We are of the considered view that now when in the case of CSEB for A.Y.2004-05 the matter

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.

capital expenditure by the A.O, which, therein, had been upheld by the CIT(Appeals) is primarily based on the fact that such approach was adopted by the A.O while framing assessment in the case of CSEB for years prior to A.Y.2009-10. We are of the considered view that now when in the case of CSEB for A.Y.2004-05 the matter

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

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 : assessed separately on 18,98,410/- sale of land @ 20% tax : para-22 TOTAL ASSESSED INCOME 10,59,36,510/- Total income assessed and rounded at Rs.10,59,36,510/-.” (emphasis supplied by us) We are unable to fathom that now when the A.O had rejected the books of accounts of the assessee, then

TULIKA KEDIA, NEW DELHI,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 147/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2020-21)

74,315/- in her ITR, therefore, the assessee was liable to get her accounts audited as per section 44AB. Accordingly, a penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- has been imposed on the assessee. 6. Aggrieved with the penalty order dated 28.03.2023, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), however, the assessee could not succeed as the contention raised

SHRI SOMNATH SAHU,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 243/Rpr/2017 & 52/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Somnath Sahu, H. No.2382, Near Shitala Mandir, Tatibandh, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Gdkps5958G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By :Shri Prafulla Pendse, Ar Revenue By :Shri G.N Singh, Sr. Dr

section 147/148 and the Ld. CIT(A) also erred by not adjudicating the issue raised in Ground No.2 before him. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred by not complying with the provisions of natural justice. 4. That the Ld. AO & Ld. CIT(A) both erred in determining the taxable income of your appellant at Rs.95,41,384/- as against