MOHAMMED USMAN, BHILAI,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.180/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mohammed Usman C/25, Nandini Road, Power House, Bhilai-490 011, Dist. Durg Pan: Aafpu9292H

delay of 58 days involved in the present appeal is condoned. 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 legal ground is answered affirmative, then the grounds on merits shall become academic

M/S. G.P. INFRAVENTURES ,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(4), RAIPUR

The appeal of the department stands disposed off

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No.76/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), V M/S G.P. Infraventures, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, S Shree Tower, Shankar Nagar, Central Revenue Building, Raipur (C.G.) Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aanfg6074B (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) : (""यथ" / Respondent) (Ita No.94/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S G.P. Infraventures, V Income Tax Officer-1(4), Shree Tower, Shankar Nagar, S Raipur Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aanfg6074B (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of : 23.11.2023 7Pronouncement

3), without issuing notice under section 143(2) and only in pursuance to notice issued by another assessing officer under section 143(2), who had no jurisdiction over the assessee at relevant time, such assessment order was liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the additional grounds filed by assessee stands allowed. 15. Regarding issuance of notice u/s 143

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), RAIPUR vs. MESERS G P INFRAVENTURES, RAIPUR

The appeal of the department stands disposed off

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No.76/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), V M/S G.P. Infraventures, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, S Shree Tower, Shankar Nagar, Central Revenue Building, Raipur (C.G.) Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aanfg6074B (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) : (""यथ" / Respondent) (Ita No.94/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S G.P. Infraventures, V Income Tax Officer-1(4), Shree Tower, Shankar Nagar, S Raipur Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aanfg6074B (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of : 23.11.2023 7Pronouncement

3), without issuing notice under section 143(2) and only in pursuance to notice issued by another assessing officer under section 143(2), who had no jurisdiction over the assessee at relevant time, such assessment order was liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the additional grounds filed by assessee stands allowed. 15. Regarding issuance of notice u/s 143

ARUNA TIWARI,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 90/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Aruna Tiwari 762, Sundar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Adbpt4977B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

delay is found to be covered by the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 dated 23.03.2020, which was thereafter modified vide further order(s) dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021, 23.09.2021 and 10.01.2022, as per which for the purpose of limitation the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 was to be excluded

BUNDELAS SECURITAS AND CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD., BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 59 & 60/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 Bundelas Securities & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. L-38, Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 223 Pan : Aaccb6831H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

condone the delay involved in filing of the present appeals by the assessee appellant. 9. Apropos the disallowance of the assessee’s claim for deduction of the delayed deposit of the employee’s share of contribution of Rs.1,44,91,662/- towards, viz. (i). ESI: Rs.17,35,445/-; and (ii). PF: Rs.1,27,56,216/- (wrongly mentioned by the assessee

BUNDELAS SECURITAS AND CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD., BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 59 & 60/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 Bundelas Securities & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. L-38, Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 223 Pan : Aaccb6831H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

condone the delay involved in filing of the present appeals by the assessee appellant. 9. Apropos the disallowance of the assessee’s claim for deduction of the delayed deposit of the employee’s share of contribution of Rs.1,44,91,662/- towards, viz. (i). ESI: Rs.17,35,445/-; and (ii). PF: Rs.1,27,56,216/- (wrongly mentioned by the assessee

SATPAL SINGH SANDHU,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 04/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Satpal Singh Sandhu 151/2, Ward -1, Sandhu Bhavan, Guru Govind Singh Marg, Heerapur, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Cseps7315E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

condoning the delay of 41 days involved in filing of the present appeal. 3. Succinctly stated, the assessee who is a labour contractor had e-filed his return of income for A.Y.2019-20 on 05.11.2019, declaring an income of Rs.24,12,846/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act, wherein after making

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)

Section 143(2) or that any prejudice was caused to the assessee in defending the case against it. We are not, therefore, prepared to think that the assessment order is invalid on the ground contended by the assessee. 13. In such circumstances, answering the aforesaid Question of law in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee this appeal

DOLPHIN PROMOTERS AND BUILDERS,RAIPUR vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 58/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2011-12)

condoned the delay involved in present case. 10. At the threshold of the hearing, Ld. AR pressed following additional grounds: Additional Ground No. 1 dated 04.04.2024 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, assessment made u/s 144 by Addl. CIT is invalid as he was not having valid jurisdiction over the assessee firm for making assessment

MICKEY SHRIVASTVA,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3(1), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

condonation of delay. He has also filed an application for raising additional ground on 26-12-2022. 2. It is first hearing and no adjournment found on records by either side. 3. The assessee paid Rs. Nil /- against demand of Rs. 19,30,510/-. The revenue involved is lower higher prescribed limit specified in CBDT Circular no 17/2019 dated

SHRI GUNJAN KUMAR BIHANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3 (4), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the captioned appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.122/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Gunjan Kumar Bihani Ashoka Ratan, Khamhardih, Shankar Nagar, Raipur-492 009 (C.G) Pan: Ajupb5787C

delay has been occurred due to bonafide reasons, 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

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

Section 143(1)(a)(vi) stipulates that addition of income can be made but the refund of the maturity proceeds of Life Insurance Policy is not an income. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the submission of the Appellant that the CPC, Bengaluru, exceeded the scope of permissible adjustments u/s. 143(1) by making an addition that

SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 237 & 238/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Suresh Kumar Gupta Prop. M/S. Mittal Roadways, A-10, G.E Road, Tatibandh Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Adcpg8248B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

section 40(a)(ia) of the income tax act, 1961. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining adhoc disallowance of Rs.37,290/- made by Ld. AO under the head petrol expenses and vehicle expenses. 3 Suresh Kumar Gupta Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur ITA Nos. 237 & 238/RPR/2023 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining ad-hoc disallowance

SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 237 & 238/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Suresh Kumar Gupta Prop. M/S. Mittal Roadways, A-10, G.E Road, Tatibandh Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Adcpg8248B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

section 40(a)(ia) of the income tax act, 1961. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining adhoc disallowance of Rs.37,290/- made by Ld. AO under the head petrol expenses and vehicle expenses. 3 Suresh Kumar Gupta Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur ITA Nos. 237 & 238/RPR/2023 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining ad-hoc disallowance

MITESH SINGHANIA,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2) RAIPUR, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.410/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Mitesh Singhania Singhania Bhawan, Subhas Road, Near Telghani Naka, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Avops1474P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur (C.G) ……""यथ" / Respondent

3: The DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru, erred in law and facts of the case in relying upon the information available on 26AS statement as the insurance company wrongly deducted TDS under section 194DA in spite of the fact that whole sum was exempt under section 10(10D) and there was no element of income in the proceeds they paid

SHRI OM PARSHAVNATH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, DURG,DURG vs. ACIT-1(1), BHILAI, DURG

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 23/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Om Parshvanath Developers Private Limited Nadi Road, Ganjpara, Durg (C.G)-491 001 Pan: Aamcs7665N

section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls

SAKSHAM,BILASPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, all the captioned appeals i

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.100 & 101/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Shrishti Institute Of Medical Science & Research Centre, Pandey Complex Near Petrol Pump, Niharika, Korba-495677 (C.G.). Pan : Aacas5201L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Bhopal ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.102/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 Saksham Mig-1 Ameri Sagar Dwip, Sagar Dwip Ameri, Bilashpur-495001(C.G.). Pan : Aaeas6801Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Bhopal

condonation of the delay in filing its audit report in “Form No. 10BB” was declined by him, as under:- 4 Shrishti Institute of Medical Science and Research Centre & Ors. vs. CIT(E) ITA No. 100, 101& 102/RPR/2020 5 Shrishti Institute of Medical Science and Research Centre & Ors. vs. CIT(E) ITA No. 100, 101& 102/RPR/2020 4. We have heard

SHRISHTI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH CENTRE,KORBA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

In the result, all the captioned appeals i

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.100 & 101/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Shrishti Institute Of Medical Science & Research Centre, Pandey Complex Near Petrol Pump, Niharika, Korba-495677 (C.G.). Pan : Aacas5201L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Bhopal ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.102/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 Saksham Mig-1 Ameri Sagar Dwip, Sagar Dwip Ameri, Bilashpur-495001(C.G.). Pan : Aaeas6801Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Bhopal

condonation of the delay in filing its audit report in “Form No. 10BB” was declined by him, as under:- 4 Shrishti Institute of Medical Science and Research Centre & Ors. vs. CIT(E) ITA No. 100, 101& 102/RPR/2020 5 Shrishti Institute of Medical Science and Research Centre & Ors. vs. CIT(E) ITA No. 100, 101& 102/RPR/2020 4. We have heard

SHRISHTI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH CENTRE,KORBA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

In the result, all the captioned appeals i

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.100 & 101/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Shrishti Institute Of Medical Science & Research Centre, Pandey Complex Near Petrol Pump, Niharika, Korba-495677 (C.G.). Pan : Aacas5201L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Bhopal ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.102/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 Saksham Mig-1 Ameri Sagar Dwip, Sagar Dwip Ameri, Bilashpur-495001(C.G.). Pan : Aaeas6801Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Bhopal

condonation of the delay in filing its audit report in “Form No. 10BB” was declined by him, as under:- 4 Shrishti Institute of Medical Science and Research Centre & Ors. vs. CIT(E) ITA No. 100, 101& 102/RPR/2020 5 Shrishti Institute of Medical Science and Research Centre & Ors. vs. CIT(E) ITA No. 100, 101& 102/RPR/2020 4. We have heard