SHRI JAIN SHWETAMBER MURTIPUJAK SANGH,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, WARD-1, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 15 & 16/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Shri Jain Shwetamber Murtipujak Sangh C/O. Santosh Parekh, Near Hanuman Mandir, Near Itwari Bazar, Dhamtari, Chhatisgarh-493 773 Pan : Aahas5883K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Ward-1, Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

83,562/-, while, there is no change in the objects and activities of the earlier and subsequent A.Ys and further, there is no finding that the assessee had carried on any activity not in accordance with its objectives and therefore, in the absence of any finding of facts, the exemption u/s.11 cannot be denied, thus, addition is liable

AADHARSHILA BUILDERS PVT. LTD., BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1 (1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.129/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2023-24 Aadharshila Builders Private Limited Opp. C.G. Bhawan, Tilak Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Aabca4675P

83,864/- claimed under Section 80-IBA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the return of income was filed beyond the due date specified under Section 139(1) of the Act. The appellant submits that the delay in filing the return was due to unforeseen circumstances, specifically the sudden illness of the counsel responsible for filing

BHARAT UTKARSH SEWA SANSTHAN, JANJGIR-CHAMPA,JANJGIR-CHAMPA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.423/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Bharat Utkarsh Sewa Sansthan Bharat Utkarsh College Of Education C/O. R.C. Pandey, P.O-Sarkhon Naila, District: Janjgir Champa Pan: Aacab0445A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer (Exemption) Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

83,000/- was erroneously filed which is not the income of the Appellant and the actual income of the Appellant is only Rs.2,32,822/-. Prayed that income be assessed at Rs.2,32,822/-. 3. That under the facts and the law, the Appellant erroneously filed the Return of Income originally which was revised subsequently and audited accounts were filed

ANAND KUMAR BANSAL,BILASPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR -1, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.133/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Anand Kumar Bansal Madhya Nagari Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Ahnpb0374N

condone the delay of 299 days. We order accordingly. 4. At the time of hearing, when the matter was call up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. The hearing of the present case had started since 24th April, 2025 and as per the order sheet entries and in the entire span of time, the matter was posted

GANESHAN PURUSHOTHAMAN ACHARI,BHILAI, DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(4), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 146 To 148/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 To 2019-20 Ganeshan Puroshothaman Achari 116, Friends Arcade, Shastri Nagar, G.E. Road, Supela, Bhilai (C.G.) Pan : Achpa6510E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Cpc, Bengaluru. ……""यथ" / Respondent

condone the delay of 11 days involved in filing of the captioned appeals. 6. Succinctly stated, the assessee who is engaged in the business of trading and installation of air conditioners had e-filed his return of income for A.Y.2017-18 on 30.10.2017, declaring an income of Rs.11,18,100/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was processed

GANESHAN PURUSHOTHAMAN ACHARI,BHILAI, DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(4), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 146 To 148/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 To 2019-20 Ganeshan Puroshothaman Achari 116, Friends Arcade, Shastri Nagar, G.E. Road, Supela, Bhilai (C.G.) Pan : Achpa6510E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Cpc, Bengaluru. ……""यथ" / Respondent

condone the delay of 11 days involved in filing of the captioned appeals. 6. Succinctly stated, the assessee who is engaged in the business of trading and installation of air conditioners had e-filed his return of income for A.Y.2017-18 on 30.10.2017, declaring an income of Rs.11,18,100/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was processed

GANESHAN PURUSHOTHAMAN ACHARI,BHILAI, DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(4), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 146 To 148/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 To 2019-20 Ganeshan Puroshothaman Achari 116, Friends Arcade, Shastri Nagar, G.E. Road, Supela, Bhilai (C.G.) Pan : Achpa6510E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Cpc, Bengaluru. ……""यथ" / Respondent

condone the delay of 11 days involved in filing of the captioned appeals. 6. Succinctly stated, the assessee who is engaged in the business of trading and installation of air conditioners had e-filed his return of income for A.Y.2017-18 on 30.10.2017, declaring an income of Rs.11,18,100/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was processed

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)

83 Supreme Court 5. CIT vs. J.L. Morrison India (2014) 366 ITR The Hon'ble High 76 - 103 Limited 593 Cal Court of Calcutta 6. Commissioner of Income Tax 2007 213 The Hon'ble 104 - 105 Vs. Max India Ltd. 7. Commissioner of Income (2017) 390 ITR 106 - 112 The Hon’ble High Tax vs. Nirav Modi 0292 Court

MARUTI CLEAN COAL AND POWER LTD.,RAIPUR vs. PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 55/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Maruti Clean Coal & Power Ltd. Ward No.42, Building No.14, Civil Lines, Near Income Tax Colony, Chhattisgarh-492 001. Pan : Aadcm4810C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By :Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms. Ananya Kapoor & Ms. Soumya Singh, Advocates. Revenue By :Shri P. K Mishra, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2022

condonation of the impugned delay involved in filing of the present appeal by the assessee appellant. 2.2 We have given a thoughtful consideration and considering the circumstances leading to the impugned delay involved in filing of the present appeal r.w the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble Apex Court admit the same. 3. We shall first deal with the additional

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, 2, RAIGARH(CG) vs. SHRI SHRI BISHAMBHAR DAYAL AGRAWAL, JASHPUR (C.G.)

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 223/Rpr/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Income Tax Officer-2, Raigarh (C.G.)

83,100/- and Rs.8,70,40/- were confiscated by the EE, PWD, Bridge Cons. Division, Bilaspur and EE, PWD Division, Champa, for the reason that the assessee had failed to complete the contract. In his attempt to further justify his aforesaid accounting practice, the assessee had drawn support from the fact that the amount of Rs.5,69,747/- that

ARIHANT JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,BHILAI vs. PR. CIT-1, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 61/Rpr/2021 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 Arihant Jewellers Private Limited 2/6, Akash Ganga, Supela, Bhilai (C.G.) .......अपीलार्थी / Appellant Pan : Aaica 6953 H

delay requiring no condonation, the appeal is allowed and proceeded with. ITAT-Raipur Page 2 of 11 AY – 2011-2012 5. The factual matrix of the case as manifested from the case records briefly are; 5.1 The appellant assessee is a closely held resident company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 [for short “COA”] on 15/07/2010 and engaged

VIJAY TRANSMISSION PVT. LTD.,RAIPU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 37/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Vijay Transmission Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.121/3, 8, 12, 13, Village Kanhera, Urla Acholi Marg, Post-Urla, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaccv4467B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

condonation of delay by the assessee applicant. After hearing the parties, we are satisfied with the reasons leading to the impugned delay, and considering 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, thereafter had from time to time been modified by the Hon’ble Apex Court

MANOJ KUMAR AGRAWAL,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(4), RAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.67-69/Rpr/2020 (Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Manoj Kumar Agrawal Vs Ito, Ward-4(4), Raipur Shop No.1 & 4, 2Nd Floor, Sahara India Life Insurance, Millenium Plaza,Raipur-4920014 Pan No. :Aclpa 8619 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) धििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Chirania, Ca राजस्ि की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Choudhary N.C.Roy, Sr. Dr सुििाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-Ii, Raipur, Dated 29.01.2020 For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out The Delay Of 66 Days In Filing The All The Three Appeals By The Assessee. In This Regard, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That The Entire Delay Was Covered Due To Covid Period, Wherein The Limitation Was Extended By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No(S).3/2020, Dated 23.03.2020, Therefore, The Delay May Be Considered As No Delay On The Part Of The Assessee & The Appeals May Be Admitted For Hearing. Ld. Dr Also Did Not Object To The Contention Raised By The Assessee. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay Of 66 Days In Filing The Present Appeals By The Assessee & The Appeals Are Heard Finally.

condone the delay of 66 days in filing the present appeals by the assessee and the appeals are heard finally. 2 ITA Nos.67-69/RPR/20 3. ITA No.67/RPR/2020 is filed against the addition sustained by the CIT(A), whereas ITA No.68&69/RPR/2020 are filed against the penalty levied u/s.271A & 271B of the Act. First, we shall decide the appeal of the assessee

MANOJ KUMAR AGRAWAL,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(4), RAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.67-69/Rpr/2020 (Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Manoj Kumar Agrawal Vs Ito, Ward-4(4), Raipur Shop No.1 & 4, 2Nd Floor, Sahara India Life Insurance, Millenium Plaza,Raipur-4920014 Pan No. :Aclpa 8619 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) धििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Chirania, Ca राजस्ि की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Choudhary N.C.Roy, Sr. Dr सुििाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-Ii, Raipur, Dated 29.01.2020 For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out The Delay Of 66 Days In Filing The All The Three Appeals By The Assessee. In This Regard, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That The Entire Delay Was Covered Due To Covid Period, Wherein The Limitation Was Extended By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No(S).3/2020, Dated 23.03.2020, Therefore, The Delay May Be Considered As No Delay On The Part Of The Assessee & The Appeals May Be Admitted For Hearing. Ld. Dr Also Did Not Object To The Contention Raised By The Assessee. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay Of 66 Days In Filing The Present Appeals By The Assessee & The Appeals Are Heard Finally.

condone the delay of 66 days in filing the present appeals by the assessee and the appeals are heard finally. 2 ITA Nos.67-69/RPR/20 3. ITA No.67/RPR/2020 is filed against the addition sustained by the CIT(A), whereas ITA No.68&69/RPR/2020 are filed against the penalty levied u/s.271A & 271B of the Act. First, we shall decide the appeal of the assessee

MANOJ KUMAR AGRAWAL,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(4), RAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.67-69/Rpr/2020 (Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Manoj Kumar Agrawal Vs Ito, Ward-4(4), Raipur Shop No.1 & 4, 2Nd Floor, Sahara India Life Insurance, Millenium Plaza,Raipur-4920014 Pan No. :Aclpa 8619 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) धििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Chirania, Ca राजस्ि की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Choudhary N.C.Roy, Sr. Dr सुििाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-Ii, Raipur, Dated 29.01.2020 For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out The Delay Of 66 Days In Filing The All The Three Appeals By The Assessee. In This Regard, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That The Entire Delay Was Covered Due To Covid Period, Wherein The Limitation Was Extended By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No(S).3/2020, Dated 23.03.2020, Therefore, The Delay May Be Considered As No Delay On The Part Of The Assessee & The Appeals May Be Admitted For Hearing. Ld. Dr Also Did Not Object To The Contention Raised By The Assessee. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay Of 66 Days In Filing The Present Appeals By The Assessee & The Appeals Are Heard Finally.

condone the delay of 66 days in filing the present appeals by the assessee and the appeals are heard finally. 2 ITA Nos.67-69/RPR/20 3. ITA No.67/RPR/2020 is filed against the addition sustained by the CIT(A), whereas ITA No.68&69/RPR/2020 are filed against the penalty levied u/s.271A & 271B of the Act. First, we shall decide the appeal of the assessee

CHHATTISGARH STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LTD,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 242/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Chhattisgarh State Beverages Corporation Limited Aabkari Bhavan, Chokra Nala, Labhandi, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aaccc3163B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

delayed, same my kindly be condoned for the aforementioned reason. 3 Chhattisgarh State Beverages Corporation Limited Vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur 5. Ground No.5 :- The assessee craves leave to add, urge, alter or withdraw any ground/s before or at the time of hearing of this appeal. III. RELIEF SOUGHT : That the Ld. CIT(A) has directed for reinstitution

KUNJ BIHARI DAWA DUKAN, AMBIKAPUR,SURGUJA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.122/Rpr/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. Kunj Bihari Dawa Dukan Pcit Opp. Govt. Distt. Hospital, Raipur - 1 Bilaspur Road Ambikapur, Surguju Chhattisgarh – 497 001

delay. It was explained that out of 409 days 388 days were covered by the relief in limitation granted by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the wake of the pandemic COVID, regarding remaining 21 days, it was the submission of Learned AR that the Counsel of the assessee, Mr. Vijay Jaiswal was unwell during those days thus the appeal couldn