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 I.T. Act? 2. Whether on the facts of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the capital gains of Rs.18,61,74,000/- arising out of the transfer of the capital asset to firm as capital contribution in its original value and revalued it at Rs.19,04,79,000/- immediately

MADHU GOYAL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.496/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Madhu Goyal D-36, Wallfort City, Bhatagaon, Raipur-492 001 (C.G) Pan: Aeypg1038E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

section 68 of IT Act on account of long term capital gain derived from sale of listed equity shares without appreciating that the same script i.e. shares of M/s.Tilak Ventures Pvt. Ltd. are held to be genuine share by various court and also there is no allegation for appellants involvement in price rigging. Thus the addition made

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 gain of Rs.3,90,94,919/- arising out sale agricultural land under section 54B of the Act because the appellant

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

capital gain Rs.36,90,097/- Accordingly, the A.O vide his order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act determined the income of the assessee at Rs.38,47,380/-. 4. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without success. Ostensibly, as the assessee despite having been afforded sufficient opportunities on seven occasions (including enablement

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.)

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 lands were capital

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).

capital gain was much more. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view findings in the above referred appellate orders dt. 13.08.2013 and 23.05.2014, I am convinced that the AO was not justified in making addition of Rs.2,61,50,496/- and the same cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.2

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).

capital gain was much more. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view findings in the above referred appellate orders dt. 13.08.2013 and 23.05.2014, I am convinced that the AO was not justified in making addition of Rs.2,61,50,496/- and the same cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.2

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).

capital gain was much more. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view findings in the above referred appellate orders dt. 13.08.2013 and 23.05.2014, I am convinced that the AO was not justified in making addition of Rs.2,61,50,496/- and the same cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.2

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

MOHAMMAD AKHTAR KHAN,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), BHILAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩलसं. / Ita No. 87/Rpr/2019 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-2014 Mohammad Akhtar Khan Ibrahim Bada, Nr Masjid Titurdih, Raipur, (C.G.) . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(1), Bhilai (C.G.) . . . . . . .प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri R. B. Doshi Revenue By : Shri Gitesh Kumar सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 16/11/2022 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 16/11/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Assessee By The Present Appeal Challenges The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Raipur [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 26/04/2017 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] Confirming The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1) Raipur [For Short “Ao”] For The Assessment Year 2013-14 [For Short “Ay”] 2. The Grounds Raised In The Appeal Memo Are;

capital gain for construction of additional floor in the same house. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. V. Pradeep Kumar and Anr. 290 ITR 90 (Mad.) has held that a mere extension of the existing building will not give benefit to the assessee under Section

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

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) ..

90,58,404/- was added back to the taxable income since the same has no connection with the eligible business of the assessee, this was correct and acceptable as per law. Contention of the AO that this was a colourable devise to enhance the eligible profit of the company, which falls under the ambit of sub-section 10 of section

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) ..

90,58,404/- was added back to the taxable income since the same has no connection with the eligible business of the assessee, this was correct and acceptable as per law. Contention of the AO that this was a colourable devise to enhance the eligible profit of the company, which falls under the ambit of sub-section 10 of section

PRABODH CHAND PARAKH, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DCIT-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.833/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2022-23 Prabodh Chand Parakh Kundan Palace, Neat St. Paul School, Byron Bazar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aeqpp5915H

capital gains and (iii) other sources totaling to Rs.45,65,107/-. The taxes paid outside India pertains to the said income was Rs.1,43,214/-. That as per return of income filed in India, taxes payable under the normal provision of the Act is Rs.9,93,025/-. 3. The limited contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee was that

DOLPHIN PRAMOTERS AND BUILDERS,RAIPUR vs. C.I.T-1, RAIPUR

Appeals are dismissed

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

90,506/- resorting to section section 80IB(10)(f). However, it is seen that no completion certificate issued by the local authority showing the date of completion of construction of housing project has been submitted by you during the course of the assessment proceedings and the AO has erroneously allowed the deduction in absence of the said completion certificate

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

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

NEELAM MANDHANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.303/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Neelam Mandhani D-27, Shailendra Nagar, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Bgkpm2502A ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

capital gain of the said land could not be ascertained and therefore the claim of the appellant she had availed under section 54F on the sale of such land at Indore was treated by the AO to be inadmissible. Therefore the AO treated the said investment made in the purchased of property of Rs.2,78,87,860/-alongwith stamp

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD,BILASPUR(CG) vs. DY.. C.I.T.-1(1), BILASPUR(CG)

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