DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(1), RAIPUR vs. MESERSS CHHATTISGARH STATEELECTRICITY BOARD, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.31/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (Through Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited) Dangania Raipur Pan : Aabcc7876Q ……""यथ" / Respondent

condoned. 23. Admittedly, the appeal filed by the Revenue involves a delay of 3966 days, which, as stated by the Ld. A.R and, rightly so, is an inordinate delay. 29 DCIT, Circle-4(1), Raipur Vs. M/s. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board Considering that the Revenue had delayed filing the present appeal before us, i.e., filed the appeal after the lapse

PRIYESH SINGHANIA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.462/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Priyesh Singhania 730/1, Radha Kunj, Opposite Vip Guest House, Pahuna, Shankar Nagar Main Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aoups7838A ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

ii) Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Raipur (C.G.), TAX Case No.17/2025, dated 24.02.2025, and (iii) Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal No…………/2025, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024, dated 21st March, 2025, we condone the delay of 57 days involved in the captioned appeal. 5. Both the parties unanimously conceded that the facts

RAM CHAND PANJWANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 151/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ram Chand Panjwani M/S. Gurunanak Rice Mill, Vill : Tulshi, P.O. Tilda, Neora, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Afbpp5595D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

25% of the value of bogus purchases and made a consequential addition of Rs.20,68,750/- to the assessee’s returned income. Apart from that the A.O had also made two additions viz. (i) Rs.1,00,000/- on account of freight expenses and hamali expenses as against claimed by the assessee of 6 Ram Chand Panjwani

KAMLESH SHARMA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), 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: 70/Rpr/2026 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2020-21) Kamlesh Sharma, House No.109, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Harihant Nagar, Sarona, Tax, Circle-1(1), Central Revenue Ring Road No.1, Raipur-492001, Cg Building, Civil Lines, Raipur-492001 Pan: Bppps4514C (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: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2020-21 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.12.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [‘Cit(A)’], National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’), Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

ii. Addition by way of disallowance of Rs. 9,89,256.00 u/s 57; iii. Addition of Rs. 9,19,253.00 claimed as exempt allowance u/s 10: iv. Addition of Rs. 1,10,00,000.00 u/s 69; and v. Addition of Rs. 39,497.00 as Short Term Capital Gain. All these additions are liable to be deleted. 4. That the appellant

SAVITA SANJAY MARGHADE,DURG, CHHATTISGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHILAI

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: 849/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2013-14) Savita Sanjay Marghade, Mig-658, Vs Income Tax Officer, Aaykar Bhavan, Padmanabhpur, Durg, Chhattisgarh. Opposite Geet Talkies, 491001 New Civic Centre, Sector 6 Bhilai Nagar, Chhattisgarh. 490006 Pan: Aktpm6715H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None. राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 17/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2013-14 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.10.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [‘Cit(A)’], National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’), Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

10,19,063 in the absence of any contract note, Demat credit, OR settlement through the stock exchange, thereby acting contrary to the settled principles that only real and substantive transactions can be subjected to tax.” 2 Savita Sanjay Marghade vs. ITO, Bhilai 2.1 The first ground is in relation of the rejection of condonation of delay application

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, DANTEWADA,DANTEWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

delay therein involved has certain justifiable reasons as demonstrated by the aforementioned assesses, which do not smack of any malafide intention or lackadaisical approach on their part, therefore, we deem it fit to condone the same without imposing any cost. Once again, as a word of caution, we may herein observe that the officers/staff members in the times to come

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, DANTEWADA,DANTEWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

delay therein involved has certain justifiable reasons as demonstrated by the aforementioned assesses, which do not smack of any malafide intention or lackadaisical approach on their part, therefore, we deem it fit to condone the same without imposing any cost. Once again, as a word of caution, we may herein observe that the officers/staff members in the times to come

DEPUTY DIRECTOR (MIN & ADMIN), JAGDALPUR,BASTAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

delay therein involved has certain justifiable reasons as demonstrated by the aforementioned assesses, which do not smack of any malafide intention or lackadaisical approach on their part, therefore, we deem it fit to condone the same without imposing any cost. Once again, as a word of caution, we may herein observe that the officers/staff members in the times to come

DEPUTY DIRECTOR (MIN & ADMIN), JAGDALPUR,BASTAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

delay therein involved has certain justifiable reasons as demonstrated by the aforementioned assesses, which do not smack of any malafide intention or lackadaisical approach on their part, therefore, we deem it fit to condone the same without imposing any cost. Once again, as a word of caution, we may herein observe that the officers/staff members in the times to come

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, BEMETARA,BEMETARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

delay therein involved has certain justifiable reasons as demonstrated by the aforementioned assesses, which do not smack of any malafide intention or lackadaisical approach on their part, therefore, we deem it fit to condone the same without imposing any cost. Once again, as a word of caution, we may herein observe that the officers/staff members in the times to come

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, BEMETARA,BEMETARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

delay therein involved has certain justifiable reasons as demonstrated by the aforementioned assesses, which do not smack of any malafide intention or lackadaisical approach on their part, therefore, we deem it fit to condone the same without imposing any cost. Once again, as a word of caution, we may herein observe that the officers/staff members in the times to come

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, BEMETARA,BEMETARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

delay therein involved has certain justifiable reasons as demonstrated by the aforementioned assesses, which do not smack of any malafide intention or lackadaisical approach on their part, therefore, we deem it fit to condone the same without imposing any cost. Once again, as a word of caution, we may herein observe that the officers/staff members in the times to come

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, DANTEWADA,DANTEWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

delay therein involved has certain justifiable reasons as demonstrated by the aforementioned assesses, which do not smack of any malafide intention or lackadaisical approach on their part, therefore, we deem it fit to condone the same without imposing any cost. Once again, as a word of caution, we may herein observe that the officers/staff members in the times to come

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, BEMETARA,BEMETARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

delay therein involved has certain justifiable reasons as demonstrated by the aforementioned assesses, which do not smack of any malafide intention or lackadaisical approach on their part, therefore, we deem it fit to condone the same without imposing any cost. Once again, as a word of caution, we may herein observe that the officers/staff members in the times to come

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, DANTEWADA,DANTEWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

delay therein involved has certain justifiable reasons as demonstrated by the aforementioned assesses, which do not smack of any malafide intention or lackadaisical approach on their part, therefore, we deem it fit to condone the same without imposing any cost. Once again, as a word of caution, we may herein observe that the officers/staff members in the times to come

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, DANTEWADA,DANTEWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

delay therein involved has certain justifiable reasons as demonstrated by the aforementioned assesses, which do not smack of any malafide intention or lackadaisical approach on their part, therefore, we deem it fit to condone the same without imposing any cost. Once again, as a word of caution, we may herein observe that the officers/staff members in the times to come

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, DANTEWADA,DANTEWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

delay therein involved has certain justifiable reasons as demonstrated by the aforementioned assesses, which do not smack of any malafide intention or lackadaisical approach on their part, therefore, we deem it fit to condone the same without imposing any cost. Once again, as a word of caution, we may herein observe that the officers/staff members in the times to come

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, DANTEWADA,DANTEWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

delay therein involved has certain justifiable reasons as demonstrated by the aforementioned assesses, which do not smack of any malafide intention or lackadaisical approach on their part, therefore, we deem it fit to condone the same without imposing any cost. Once again, as a word of caution, we may herein observe that the officers/staff members in the times to come