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

section 147, that the assessment of tax due has to be recomputed on the entire taxable income. The judgment in V. Jaganmohan Rao’s case (supra), therefore, cannot be read to imply as laying down that in the reassessment proceedings validly initiated the assessee can seek reopening of the whole assessment and claim credit in respect of items finally concluded

V Y INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am

45,38,01,828/-. The case was picked up for scrutiny. During the relevant year the appellant assessee company had issued 2,58,303 shares at Face Value of Rs.10/- with the share premium of Rs.80/- per share. Resultantly, the assessee received share capital of Rs.2,32,49,970/- in the relevant year. The Ld. Assessing Officer (‘AO’) inquired about

SHAILESH JAISWAL, BALRAMPUR,BALRAMPUR vs. ITO-1, AMBIKAPUR, AMBIKAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.467 & 468/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15

45 days as claimed by the assessee. Therefore, first it has to be ascertained by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC what are the exact days of delay through necessary enquiry and accordingly on considering the submissions of the assessee, the merits for condonation of such delay has to be decided first. Accordingly, I set-aside the order

SHAILESH JAISWAL, BALRAMPUR,BALRAMPUR vs. ITO-1, AMBIKAPUR, AMBIKAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.467 & 468/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15

45 days as claimed by the assessee. Therefore, first it has to be ascertained by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC what are the exact days of delay through necessary enquiry and accordingly on considering the submissions of the assessee, the merits for condonation of such delay has to be decided first. Accordingly, I set-aside the order

RANCHI FUELS, BALODA BAZAR, BHATAPARA,BALODA BAZAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHATAPARA, BHATAPARA

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.532/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ranchi Fuels Limtara, Nandghat, Baloda Bazar-492 006 (C.G.) Pan: Aatfr0836L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Bhatapara (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

Sections 11 & 12 of the IT Act, and that too in absence of counter-affidavit filed by the Revenue opposing the application for condonation of delay supported by affidavit. The ITAT ought to have condoned the delay in preferring the appeal as there is no allegation that delay in filing the appeal is mala fide or it is deliberate, rather

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

45 CCH 590 (Del), wherein a delay of 1297 days in filing of cross-objections by the assessee was condoned by the tribunal for the reason that the assessee’s counsel had failed to give him a proper advise. Alternatively, it was submitted by the ld. AR that as by filing the present cross- objection he had only assailed

ASHOK KUMAR WADHWANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.117 &118/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17 Ashok Kumar Wadhwani, Ujwal Udyog, Sinodha, Neora, Tilda, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aahpw1400B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

delay of 597 days has been condoned and the matter remanded back to this Bench based on similar observation vide order dated 10.03.2025 in Tax Case No. 209/2024. The same is only referred to and not extracted for the sake of brevity. 4. Regarding merits, the parties herein submitted that the facts, circumstances and the issues involved in both these

ASHOK KUMAR WADHWANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.117 &118/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17 Ashok Kumar Wadhwani, Ujwal Udyog, Sinodha, Neora, Tilda, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aahpw1400B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

delay of 597 days has been condoned and the matter remanded back to this Bench based on similar observation vide order dated 10.03.2025 in Tax Case No. 209/2024. The same is only referred to and not extracted for the sake of brevity. 4. Regarding merits, the parties herein submitted that the facts, circumstances and the issues involved in both these

AWANISH PANDEY, AMBIKAPUR,SURGUJA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.128/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

45,021/- under section 147 of I.T.Act,1961. For taxing the said amount, issue of notice u/s.148 is necessary. Accordingly, necessary approval u/s. 151(1) of the 1.T Act may be accorded at your end. Date :25.01.2018 Pradeep Kumar Ramteke Income Tax Officer-2, Ambikapur” Notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 08.06.2018 was issued to the assessee. In compliance

RICHHPAL SINGH TYAGI,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 15 & 16/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Richhpal Singh Tyagi 865, Near Kargil Chowk Sunder Nagar, Raipur (C.G)-492 001 Pan : Admpt5049D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 17/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deepak Tyagi 865, Near Kargil Chowk Sunder Nagar, Raipur (C.G)-492 001 Pan : Ahnpt2650H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-4(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19

condone the delay involved in filing of the present appeal. 6. Controversy involved in the present appeal hinges around the sustainability of the disallowance made by the A.O of the assessee’s A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 claim for deduction of the delayed deposit of employee’s share of contributions towards labour welfare funds, viz. Provident fund (PF) and Employee

RICHHPAL SINGH TYAGI,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 15 & 16/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Richhpal Singh Tyagi 865, Near Kargil Chowk Sunder Nagar, Raipur (C.G)-492 001 Pan : Admpt5049D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 17/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deepak Tyagi 865, Near Kargil Chowk Sunder Nagar, Raipur (C.G)-492 001 Pan : Ahnpt2650H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-4(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19

condone the delay involved in filing of the present appeal. 6. Controversy involved in the present appeal hinges around the sustainability of the disallowance made by the A.O of the assessee’s A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 claim for deduction of the delayed deposit of employee’s share of contributions towards labour welfare funds, viz. Provident fund (PF) and Employee

DEEPAK TYAGI,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE4(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 15 & 16/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Richhpal Singh Tyagi 865, Near Kargil Chowk Sunder Nagar, Raipur (C.G)-492 001 Pan : Admpt5049D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 17/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deepak Tyagi 865, Near Kargil Chowk Sunder Nagar, Raipur (C.G)-492 001 Pan : Ahnpt2650H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-4(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19

condone the delay involved in filing of the present appeal. 6. Controversy involved in the present appeal hinges around the sustainability of the disallowance made by the A.O of the assessee’s A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 claim for deduction of the delayed deposit of employee’s share of contributions towards labour welfare funds, viz. Provident fund (PF) and Employee

PRIYANKA TYAGI,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFFICER-2(2), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 15 & 16/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Richhpal Singh Tyagi 865, Near Kargil Chowk Sunder Nagar, Raipur (C.G)-492 001 Pan : Admpt5049D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 17/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deepak Tyagi 865, Near Kargil Chowk Sunder Nagar, Raipur (C.G)-492 001 Pan : Ahnpt2650H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-4(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19

condone the delay involved in filing of the present appeal. 6. Controversy involved in the present appeal hinges around the sustainability of the disallowance made by the A.O of the assessee’s A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 claim for deduction of the delayed deposit of employee’s share of contributions towards labour welfare funds, viz. Provident fund (PF) and Employee

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 Honble 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 No............ /2025

DAS PROCESSORS,RAJNANDGAON,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1 RAJNANDGAON, RAJNANDGAON

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: 780/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19) Das Processors, 44 Vardhman Nagar Vs Income Tax Officer-1 Jain School Road, Rajnandgaon, Rajnandgaon, Fci Road, Chhattisgarh-491441 Near Raipur Naka Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh-491441 Pan: Aaifd6768Q (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 : 09/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 12/03/2026 Pronouncement

condoning the delay in filing the appeal and affording reasonable opportunity of being heard. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) 1 Das Processors vs. ITO-1, Rajnandgaon did not decide the appeal on merit. The assessee has also raised the issue that the Ld. Assessing Officer (‘AO’) has not carried out the requisite enquiries/investigation/ verification as directed by the Ld. Principal

RADHA MISHRA,BILASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.509/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Radha Mishra C/O. Kunj Bihari Mishra, Opp. D.P. Vipra Law College, Ashok Nagar, Sarkanda, Bilaspur-495 001 (C.G.) Pan: Bzspm0698G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

delay of 34 days in filing of the present appeal, therefore, the same considering the totality of the facts merits to be condoned. 5. Controversy involved in the present appeal hinges around in a narrow compass i.e. as to whether or not the A.O was justified in law and facts of the case in treating the unexplained portion

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

condoned. 8.7. On merits, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Oil & Natural Gas Commission & Anr. Vs. Collector of Central Excise (supra), the department while filing the present appeals remained under a statutory obligation to have obtained 16 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

condoned. 8.7. On merits, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Oil & Natural Gas Commission & Anr. Vs. Collector of Central Excise (supra), the department while filing the present appeals remained under a statutory obligation to have obtained 16 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases