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 :

delay should be condoned and proceed to adjudicate the issue on merits. 4. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned AO has erred on facts and in law in making addition of Rs.55,38,000/- by invoking the provisions of Section

VINOD KUMAR KAILASHCHANDRA VERMA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 69/Rpr/2026 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vinod Kumar Khailashchandra Verma, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), House No.496/9, Avanti Vihar, Sector-2, Central Revenue Building, Telibandha, Raipur-492001 (C.G.) Civil Lines, Raipur, C.G. 492001 Pan: Aanpv5964B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None. (Adjournment Petition Filed.) राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 06/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

Term Capital Gain. All these additions are liable to be deleted. 5. That the appellant reserves the right to add, alter or modify any ground of appeal.” 2.1 The 1st ground challenges the non-admission of appeal by rejecting the delay condonation application by the Ld. CIT(A). The 2nd & 3rd ground, legal grounds, challenge the validity of reopening

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

Long-Term Capital 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

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER -1, RAIGARH, RAIGARH(CG) vs. SHRI SHRI PARMANAND GUPTA, RAIGARH, RAIGARH(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 82/Rpr/2017 Co. No. 02/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 The Income Tax Officer-1, Raigarh (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Parmanand Gupta, Alochan Agrawal, L/H. Of Late Shri Parmanand Gupta, Prop. M/S. Balaji Handloom, 19/48, Palace Road, Raigarh (C.G.) Pan : Afdpg4961L ……""यथ" / Respondent

condone the delay of 1722 days involved in filing of the present cross-objection by the L/heir of the assesssee. Before parting, we may herein observe, that as the assessee even otherwise by way of the present cross- objection is assailing the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by the AO for reopening his case

YOGESH KUMAR VERMA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-4(5), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 305/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15)

long term capital gain on sale of land by applying sec 50C(J) without referring the matter to DVO for valuation of such land u/s 50C(2) when 'actual sale consideration' is less than the 'stamp duty value', matter is liable to be referred to DVO for valuation; action of the AO/ CIT(A) without following procedure laid down

LALCHAND RAMNANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(3), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 288/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Lalchand Ramnani New Cloth Market, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Acnpr3983J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

long-term capital gain claimed exempt by the appellant alleging it to be bogus invoking sec. 68. The addition made by AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) is arbitrary and not justified. 4. The appellant reserves the right to amend, modify or add any of the ground/s of appeal.” 2. Before proceeding any further, I may herein observe that

SUNITA GUPTA,INDORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.136/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 Sunita Gupta 404, Suraj Villa, 9/2 New Palasia, Indore (M.P)-452 001 Pan: Adcpg7885L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

long term capital gain on sale of shares of Konark Commerce Industries Ltd. The appellant had sold 30,000 shares of Konark Commerce Industries Ltd. in 19 counts amounting to Rs.29,19,000/-. Accordingly, the case was reopened as per the procedure u/s 147 of the Act and the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 29.03.2017. During

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

capitalized for Rs. 1,56,77,767/- Rs. 1,56,77,767/- - development of projects 2. Guest House expenses Rs. 27,50,500/- Rs. 27,50,500/- - 3. Expenses on assets not Rs. 1,02,16,100/- Rs. 51,08,050/- Rs.51,08,050/- belonging to the assessee 4. Social overhead-Grants

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

capitalized for Rs. 1,56,77,767/- Rs. 1,56,77,767/- - development of projects 2. Guest House expenses Rs. 27,50,500/- Rs. 27,50,500/- - 3. Expenses on assets not Rs. 1,02,16,100/- Rs. 51,08,050/- Rs.51,08,050/- belonging to the assessee 4. Social overhead-Grants

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

capitalized for Rs. 1,56,77,767/- Rs. 1,56,77,767/- - development of projects 2. Guest House expenses Rs. 27,50,500/- Rs. 27,50,500/- - 3. Expenses on assets not Rs. 1,02,16,100/- Rs. 51,08,050/- Rs.51,08,050/- belonging to the assessee 4. Social overhead-Grants

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

capitalized for Rs. 1,56,77,767/- Rs. 1,56,77,767/- - development of projects 2. Guest House expenses Rs. 27,50,500/- Rs. 27,50,500/- - 3. Expenses on assets not Rs. 1,02,16,100/- Rs. 51,08,050/- Rs.51,08,050/- belonging to the assessee 4. Social overhead-Grants

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

capitalized for Rs. 1,56,77,767/- Rs. 1,56,77,767/- - development of projects 2. Guest House expenses Rs. 27,50,500/- Rs. 27,50,500/- - 3. Expenses on assets not Rs. 1,02,16,100/- Rs. 51,08,050/- Rs.51,08,050/- belonging to the assessee 4. Social overhead-Grants

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

capitalized for Rs. 1,56,77,767/- Rs. 1,56,77,767/- - development of projects 2. Guest House expenses Rs. 27,50,500/- Rs. 27,50,500/- - 3. Expenses on assets not Rs. 1,02,16,100/- Rs. 51,08,050/- Rs.51,08,050/- belonging to the assessee 4. Social overhead-Grants

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

capitalized for Rs. 1,56,77,767/- Rs. 1,56,77,767/- - development of projects 2. Guest House expenses Rs. 27,50,500/- Rs. 27,50,500/- - 3. Expenses on assets not Rs. 1,02,16,100/- Rs. 51,08,050/- Rs.51,08,050/- belonging to the assessee 4. Social overhead-Grants

ADDL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE -1, BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

capitalized for Rs. 1,56,77,767/- Rs. 1,56,77,767/- - development of projects 2. Guest House expenses Rs. 27,50,500/- Rs. 27,50,500/- - 3. Expenses on assets not Rs. 1,02,16,100/- Rs. 51,08,050/- Rs.51,08,050/- belonging to the assessee 4. Social overhead-Grants

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

capitalized for Rs. 1,56,77,767/- Rs. 1,56,77,767/- - development of projects 2. Guest House expenses Rs. 27,50,500/- Rs. 27,50,500/- - 3. Expenses on assets not Rs. 1,02,16,100/- Rs. 51,08,050/- Rs.51,08,050/- belonging to the assessee 4. Social overhead-Grants

ADDL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE -1, BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

capitalized for Rs. 1,56,77,767/- Rs. 1,56,77,767/- - development of projects 2. Guest House expenses Rs. 27,50,500/- Rs. 27,50,500/- - 3. Expenses on assets not Rs. 1,02,16,100/- Rs. 51,08,050/- Rs.51,08,050/- belonging to the assessee 4. Social overhead-Grants

M/S BEC INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,DURG vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHILAI

In the result ground no. 3 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.66/Rpr/2020 (Assessment Year: 2014-2015) M/S Bec Infra Private Limited, Vs Circle-3(1), Raipur 47, Motilal Nehru Nagar, Durg Pan No. :Aagcm 0049 N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Nilesh Jain, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/04/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-Ii, Raipur, Dated 31.12.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2. At The Outset, Ld. Sr. Dr Submitted That The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 59 Days, Which Can Be Further Extended Since The Claim Of The Assessee That The Order Was Served After 38 Days Of Delay Was Not Supported By Any Documentary Evidence. As Per Appeal Memo In Form No.36, The Date Of Service Of Communication Of The Order Was 7Th February, 2020 & The Appeal Was Filed On 08.06.2020. On This Aspect, The Ld. Ar Submitted That This Was The Covid-19 Period & The Hon’Ble Apex Court Has Already Directed To Extend The Limitation For That Period, Therefore, The Delay May Be Condoned. The Submission Of The Ld. Ar Found Satisfactory & Acceptable & Accordingly, The Delay In Filing The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned.

delay in filing the present appeal by the assessee is condoned. 2 ITANo.66/RPR/20 3. The assessee in its appeal has raised the following grounds:- 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Id. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT, PACHEDA, ABHANPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.114/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Village- Pacheda, Block-Abhanpur, Chhatisgarh-493 661 Pan : Aaaag9886H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

delay involved in filing of the present appeal, therefore, I am of the considered view that the same having occasioned on account of bonafide reasons merits to be condoned. 3. As the assessee by raising the aforesaid additional grounds of appeal has sought adjudication of issues involving purely legal issues which would not require looking any further beyond the facts