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

80,280/-. 4 Rahul Bajpai Vs. DCIT Circle-1(1), Bilaspur Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for “limited scrutiny” u/s.143(2) of the Act. 4. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the A.O observed that the assessee had purchased certain land for a consideration of Rs. 5 lacs, whereas, the Fair Market Value

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.)

Section 2(14) of the Act and the assessee was liable to pay capital gain tax for such transfer of properties. The omission of the A.O to enquire and assess this aspect of capital gain had caused under-assessment of income of Rs.65,68,200/- causing thereby under levy of tax, surcharge and cess of Rs.14,80

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

gains derived from transfer of a capital asset on which no depreciation is allowable under the Act shall be computed at the rate of twenty-two per cent: Provided also that where the person fails to satisfy the conditions contained in sub-section (2) in any previous year, the option shall become invalid in respect of the assessment year relevant

PANCHSHEEL SOLVENT PVT. LTD., RAJANANDGAON,RAJANANDGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Appeal is allowed, partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 110/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2016-17)

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, dated 28.12.2018. 2 Panchsheel Solvent Pvt. Ltd., Rajnandgaon vs ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, reads as under: 1. That the order of the Learned Commissioner (appeals) is arbitrary and illegal and against the principal of natural justice. 2. For the reason that

SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI SIRRI, ,BALOD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), BHILAI, BHILAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.109/Rpr/2026 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sewa Sahkari Samiti Sirri, Village & Post:Sirri, Tehsil Gunderdehi, District Balod, Chhattsigarh, 491221 Pan: Aagas8961H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

capital, if not immediately required to be lent to the members, instead of keeping the said amount idle, they deposit the amount in bank so to earn interest and the said interest income is attributable to the profits and gains of the business of providing credit facilities to its members only. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the A.O made

SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI LATABOD,LATABOD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISALI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.5/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Sewa Sahakari Samiti Latabod K-6, Anupam Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aahas1552M

capital, if not immediately required to be lent to the members, instead of keeping the said amount idle, they deposit the amount in bank so to earn interest and the said interest income is attributable to the profits and gains of the business of providing credit facilities to its members only. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the A.O made

VRIHTAKAR SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT SURGI,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, RAJNANDGAON, RAJNANDGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.105/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19

Section 80(P)(2) of the Income Tax Act. 6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed, answering the question against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee. 7. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.” 5 Vrihtakar Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Surgi

SEEMA DEVI AGRAWAL,RAIGARH, CHHATTISGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BILASPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Seema Devi Agrawal C/O. Sunil Kumar Agrawal Sewa Kund Road, Raigarh-496 001 (C.G.) Pan: Affpa4990K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

80,100/- during the F.Y.2014-15 relevant to A.Y.2015-16. Thereafter, the A.O writes that “the capital gain arising out of sale from the properties has not been disclosed………”. Therefore, on one hand, the A.O initiated reassessment proceedings on the basis of the fact that the assessee had made investment in purchase of immovable property, whereas, in concluding the “reasons to believe

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-2(1)BHILAI, BHILAI(CG) vs. M/S SMS SHIVNATH INFRASSTRUCTURE PVT LTD., DURG, DURG(CG)

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.87/Rpr/2017 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Acit-2(1), Bhilai Vs M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.,Toll Plaza, Near Dhamdhanaka, Durg. Pan No. :Aadcs 2258 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.107/Rpr/2016 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Vs Pr.Cit-2, Raipur Pvt Ltd.,Toll Plaza, Near Dhamdhanaka, Durg. Pan No. :Aadcs 2258 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

capital gains and income from other sources. Apart from the said incomes, the Assessee also had Income under the head business and profession amounting to Rs. 23,88,87,498 which was fully claimed as deduction U/s 80lA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act"). Tax was paid U/s 115JB of the Act. 3. The Assessee had during the immediately

M/S SMS SHIVNATH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,DURG(CG) vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.87/Rpr/2017 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Acit-2(1), Bhilai Vs M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.,Toll Plaza, Near Dhamdhanaka, Durg. Pan No. :Aadcs 2258 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.107/Rpr/2016 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Vs Pr.Cit-2, Raipur Pvt Ltd.,Toll Plaza, Near Dhamdhanaka, Durg. Pan No. :Aadcs 2258 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

capital gains and income from other sources. Apart from the said incomes, the Assessee also had Income under the head business and profession amounting to Rs. 23,88,87,498 which was fully claimed as deduction U/s 80lA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act"). Tax was paid U/s 115JB of the Act. 3. The Assessee had during the immediately

CHHATTISGARH SAHAKARI SAKH SAMITI MARYADIT, BHILAI,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No 284, 286 &

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No.284,285,286,287/Rpr/2023) (Assessment Year:2013-14,2017-18,2018-19,2020-21)

80(P)(2)(a)(i). Observations of the ITAT, Raipur are extracted as under:- 12. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by the Ld. AR to drive home

CHHATTISGARH SAHAKARI SAKH SAMITI MARYADIT, BHILAI,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No 284, 286 &

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No.284,285,286,287/Rpr/2023) (Assessment Year:2013-14,2017-18,2018-19,2020-21)

80(P)(2)(a)(i). Observations of the ITAT, Raipur are extracted as under:- 12. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by the Ld. AR to drive home

CHHATTISGARH SAHAKARI SAKH SAMITI MARYADIT, BHILAI,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No 284, 286 &

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No.284,285,286,287/Rpr/2023) (Assessment Year:2013-14,2017-18,2018-19,2020-21)

80(P)(2)(a)(i). Observations of the ITAT, Raipur are extracted as under:- 12. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by the Ld. AR to drive home

CHHATTISGARH SAHAKARI SAKH SAMITI MARYADIT, BHILAI,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No 284, 286 &

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No.284,285,286,287/Rpr/2023) (Assessment Year:2013-14,2017-18,2018-19,2020-21)

80(P)(2)(a)(i). Observations of the ITAT, Raipur are extracted as under:- 12. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by the Ld. AR to drive home

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

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)

80,780/-, however it is noticed by the Ld. AO that the 3 Tuleka Kedia, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Raipur business income of the assessee was more than Rs. 1 Crore, therefore, attracts the provisions of section 44AB of the Act, thereby, the assessee had to get her accounts audited which was not done, therefore, a penalty

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

section 5, when it is received or deemed to be received by a person. All income for the purpose of charge of income-tax and computation of total income is required to be classified under distinct heads of income such as salaries, income from house property, profits and gains of business or profession, capital gains and income from other sources

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

section 5, when it is received or deemed to be received by a person. All income for the purpose of charge of income-tax and computation of total income is required to be classified under distinct heads of income such as salaries, income from house property, profits and gains of business or profession, capital gains and income from other sources