NIKITA KINGRANI, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-TDS WARD, BHILAI, DURG

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

6. In the result, appeal is dismissed in limine.” At this stage, it is pertinent to point out that the observations of the CIT(Appeals) regarding the remaining cases are similar in nature except for the period of delay involved in those appeals. For the sake of brevity, the same are only referred to and not being reproduced. 8 Nikita

NIKITA KINGRANI, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-TDS WARD, BHILAI, DURG

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

6. In the result, appeal is dismissed in limine.” At this stage, it is pertinent to point out that the observations of the CIT(Appeals) regarding the remaining cases are similar in nature except for the period of delay involved in those appeals. For the sake of brevity, the same are only referred to and not being reproduced. 8 Nikita

NIKITA KINGRANI, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-TDS WARD, BHILAI, DURG

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

6. In the result, appeal is dismissed in limine.” At this stage, it is pertinent to point out that the observations of the CIT(Appeals) regarding the remaining cases are similar in nature except for the period of delay involved in those appeals. For the sake of brevity, the same are only referred to and not being reproduced. 8 Nikita

NIKITA KINGRANI, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-TDS WARD, BHILAI, DURG

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

6. In the result, appeal is dismissed in limine.” At this stage, it is pertinent to point out that the observations of the CIT(Appeals) regarding the remaining cases are similar in nature except for the period of delay involved in those appeals. For the sake of brevity, the same are only referred to and not being reproduced. 8 Nikita

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)

194C of the act and on account of payment to various transporters. ( Para-04 Page-04) III. Dis allowed expenses of Rs. 66,142/- on various expenses debited to the account.Para- 05 Page-04 5. CIT appeal decision; - The CIT appeal dismissed the appeal of the assesee and confirmed the addition, as above of AO. 6. The application of condonation

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, M P P W D DN,,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BHILAI

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 294/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Executive Engineer, M P P W D Dn P W Division (B/R) G.E. Road, Kailash Nagar, Rajnandgaon (C.G.)-491 441 Tan: Jbpe00177C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer (Tds), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

194C of the Act, as under : 3 Executive Engineer, M P P W D DN Vs. ITO (TDS), Bhilai 4 Executive Engineer, M P P W D DN Vs. ITO (TDS), Bhilai Based on the aforesaid fact, the A.O. held the assessee in default and saddled it with liability towards tax u/s. 201(1) of Rs. 85,199/- and interest

M/S BHARAT AGRO INDUSTRIES, ,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 263/Rpr/2017) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बनाम/ M/S. Bharat Agro Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Raipur Industries Vs. Near Bajrang Power, Rajiv Gandhi Ward, Urla Sarora Road, Urla Industrial Area, Raipur (C.G.) "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahfb8665M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

194C of the Act. Further, brokerage of Rs. 8010/- to Fair deal and Rs.7980/- to Goyal sales have been paid without making TDS . The above expenses are not allowable as per the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. However, you have not disallowed such expenses

SHRI LAXMAN BHAI DAHYA BHAI PATEL,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), BHILAI

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 29/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Laxman Bhai Dahya Bhai Patel Padmanabhpur, Patel Complex, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan : Aafl8291J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

Section 194C of the Act, therefore, the A.O disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act 30% of the said expenditure and worked out a disallowance of Rs.15,98,210/-(sic). However, the A.O while culminating the assessment vide his order passed u/s.143(3) dated 30.12.2017, inter alia, disallowed, viz. (i) assessee’s claim for deduction of tendu patta plucking

SHRI CHANKI RAMWANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.551/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Chanki Ramwani, Plot No.11/12, Phase-I/Ii, Shri Ram Nagar, Shankar Nagar, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Anypr6711J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

6. Admittedly, as the CIT(A)’s office has failed to serve upon the assessee, a hard copy of the impugned order, therefore, I find no justification in reckoning the period of limitation from the date on which the impugned order is stated to have been dropped in his email account. As the assessee states that the impugned order

HARISH PANDEY, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 503/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

section 147 r.w.s. 148, 148A, 149, 151 and 151A of the Act. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in upholding order of learned Assessing Officer making addition of Rs.87,07,200/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and charging the same