SARTHAK ISPAT PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A No. 14 & Ita Nos. 513, 514, 515, 516 & 517/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

condonation of delay. 6. It is noticed that there are the common, interconnected and identical issues involved in the captioned appeals arising from the orders of Ld. AO passed on an even date, having common findings. The orders passed by Ld. AO u/s 153A are assailed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), which are decided by the First

SARTHAK ISPAT PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A No. 14 & Ita Nos. 513, 514, 515, 516 & 517/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

condonation of delay. 6. It is noticed that there are the common, interconnected and identical issues involved in the captioned appeals arising from the orders of Ld. AO passed on an even date, having common findings. The orders passed by Ld. AO u/s 153A are assailed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), which are decided by the First

SARTHAK ISPAT PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A No. 14 & Ita Nos. 513, 514, 515, 516 & 517/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

condonation of delay. 6. It is noticed that there are the common, interconnected and identical issues involved in the captioned appeals arising from the orders of Ld. AO passed on an even date, having common findings. The orders passed by Ld. AO u/s 153A are assailed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), which are decided by the First

SUNIL SPONGE PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.748/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sunil Sponge Private Limited Plot No.96-97, Phase-Ii, Industrial Area, Siltara, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Aahcs7999A

delay of 3 days is condoned and the appeal is heard on merits. 3 Sunil Sponge Private Limited Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Raipur 5. In this case, the assessee has filed both legal grounds as well as grounds on merits. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that he would assail the legal ground first and if the said

SHANKAR LAL CHHUGANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.179/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Shankar Lal Chhugani H.No.79/80, Sector-3, Gitanjali Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aetpc9570Q ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur (C.G.)

delay is not inordinate and it is bonafide, we condone the same relying on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Civil Appeal Nos……………../2025 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310-26311/2024, dated 31.01.2025 and Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal

TRIDEV ISPAT PVT. LTD., KOLKATA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

delay of 40 & 41 days in instituting these twin appeals, we after placing reliance on ‘Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ reported 398 ITR 250 (Bom) and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ reported at 167 ITR 5 (SC), in the larger interest of judice deem it fit to condone the same and proceed

TRIDEV ISPAT PVT. LTD., KOLKATA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

delay of 40 & 41 days in instituting these twin appeals, we after placing reliance on ‘Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ reported 398 ITR 250 (Bom) and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ reported at 167 ITR 5 (SC), in the larger interest of judice deem it fit to condone the same and proceed

ANIL NACHRANI,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 47/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

search and seizure operation. The documents contained detailed account of cash loan given on particular dates, Interest earned thereon as well as Interest received. The account also showed whether it is journal entry received as well as closing balance. Further the promissory notes were also found and seized, duly signed by the person who has taken the loan. Further

NEELAM CHANDRAKAR, RAJNANDGAON,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

delay caused in no way can be attributed to any deliberate conduct of the assessee. appeals respectively are condoned. I take guidance from the judicial pronouncements in the cases of viz. (i) Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Civil Appeal Nos……………../2025 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310-26311/2024, dated 31.01.2025; (ii) Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional

LEELADHAR CHANDRAKAR, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (3), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

delay caused in no way can be attributed to any deliberate conduct of the assessee. appeals respectively are condoned. I take guidance from the judicial pronouncements in the cases of viz. (i) Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Civil Appeal Nos……………../2025 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310-26311/2024, dated 31.01.2025; (ii) Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional

LEELADHAR CHANDRAKAR, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

delay caused in no way can be attributed to any deliberate conduct of the assessee. appeals respectively are condoned. I take guidance from the judicial pronouncements in the cases of viz. (i) Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Civil Appeal Nos……………../2025 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310-26311/2024, dated 31.01.2025; (ii) Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional