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

80,325/- under 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

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

80,325/- under 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

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

PRANAV TRUST, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), BHILAI, DURG

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 177/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Pranav Trust Baniya Para, Durg-491 001 (C.G.)-491 001 Pan : Aabtp9694C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

condoning the delay of 9 days involved in filing of the same. 5. Controversy involved in the present appeal lies in a narrow compass, i.e., as to whether or not the CIT(Appeals) is right in law and facts of the case in approving the levy of tax on the income of the assessee trust at Maximum Marginal Rate

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

BHARAT KUMAR AGRAWAL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-4(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are\nallowed for statistical purposes

80\ndays. That explaining the reasons for such delay, the Ld. Counsel for the\nassessee has filed condonation petition a/w. affidavit 21.02.2026. For the\nsake of completeness, the relevant contents of the said affidavit are\nextracted as follows:\n3\nBharat Kumar Agrawal Vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Raipur (C.G.)\nITA No.110/RPR/2026\nBefore the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals

GOPAL SPONGE & POWER PVT. LTD,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed, in terms of our observations here in above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 226/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Gopal Sponge & Power Pvt. Ltd., Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Village- Siltara, Near Industrial Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur, (C.G.) Growth Centre, Phase- 2, Raipur, (C.G.) Pan: Aaccg1525F (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B. Subramanyam, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.K. Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02-08-2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17-10- 2023

condone 4 the delay in filing of the present appeal, thus, the same is permitted to be adjudicated. 3. The brief facts of the case and issue involved, culled out from the records are that the assessee is a Pvt. Ltd. Company, engaged in the business of manufacturing of sponge iron and MS Ingot and trading of related raw materials

KAMLESH KUKREJA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryassessment Year : 2016-17 Kamlesh Kukreja Ito, Ward-1(1), Raipur Prop. Anmol Industries, Vs. Surajpura Road, Bhatapara, Raipur – 493118 Ahvpk6618C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal Department By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-01-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 8. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his original return of income for the impugned assessment year on 06.09.2016 declaring total income of Rs.5,97,440/-. The case of the assessee was reopened on the ground

TARUN KUMAR (HUF),RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3), RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 210/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Tarun Kumar Huf Bunglow No.09, Dolphin Plaza, Behind Usha Pride Complex, Mowa, Daldalseoni, Saddu, Raipur (C.G.)-492 014. Pan : Aacht8980N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(3), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

condonation of the delay of one day involved in filing of its return of income for the year under consideration i.e AY 2016-17 is thus declined. We, thus, are of the considered view that as the assessee had failed to file its 7 Tarun Kumar HUF Vs. ITO-3(3), Raipur return of income for the year under consideration

KISHOR KUMAR ARYA, NARAYANPUR,NARAYANPUR vs. ITO, WARD-JAGDALPUR, JAGDALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.113/Rpr/2026 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2019-20 Kishor Kumar Arya, Jai Mahamaya Petroleum, Village Sulenga, Narayanpur, 494661, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Ahipa5046R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

condone the delay of 80 days and proceed to hear the matter on merits. 5. That so far the merits are concerned, it is observed at the outset in the order of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC at para 6 that inspite of reasonable opportunities of hearing given to the assessee, there was no submissions filed by the assessee and hence

THE REDIANT WAY SCHOOL,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE THE CHIF COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

condoned" 4 In the instant case also, upon admission of the matter, there is no disadvantage being vested on Revenue nor the appellant is drawing any undue advantage due to the delay and hence the ratio is squarely applicable. b. Hosanna Ministries v. Income-tax Officer (Exemptions) [2017] 80 taxmann.com 173 (Madras)[07-03-2017] In this case the assessee

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

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

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

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

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

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