SHRI DURGA GRAM SERVICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED MERHANA,BILASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD BILASPUR, BILASPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.535/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Durga Gram Service Co-Operative Society Limited Village: Merhana Ghumarwin, Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh-174 028 Pan: Aagas5856D

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 regarding the condonation of delay in respect of case of land acquisition has observed and held on the aspect of delay that although the delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, the merits of the case could not be discarded solely on the ground of delay. A liberal approach, therefore, should be taken

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

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

97,27,050/- Total Rs.5,22,81,663/- On being queried about the nature and sources of the aforesaid cash deposits, it was the claim of the assessee that the same were the cash sale proceeds which were deposited by the outstation based purchasers of yarn in his bank accounts. However, the assessee on being called upon to furnish

KAMALESH KUMAR DEWANGAN, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.514 & 515/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Kamlesh Kumar Dewangan House No.Ch-199, Slice-2, Behind Bengal Sweets, Veerawarkar Nagar, Hirapur, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aerpd4010Q

delay of 363 days in filing of the appeals is condoned in view of the following judicial pronouncements viz. (i) Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Civil Appeal Nos……………../2025 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310-26311/2024, dated 31.01.2025; (ii) Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Raipur (C.G.), TAX Case No.17/2025, dated

KAMALESH KUMAR DEWANGAN, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.514 & 515/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Kamlesh Kumar Dewangan House No.Ch-199, Slice-2, Behind Bengal Sweets, Veerawarkar Nagar, Hirapur, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aerpd4010Q

delay of 363 days in filing of the appeals is condoned in view of the following judicial pronouncements viz. (i) Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Civil Appeal Nos……………../2025 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310-26311/2024, dated 31.01.2025; (ii) Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Raipur (C.G.), TAX Case No.17/2025, dated

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

condone the impugned delay of 152 days (as pointed out by the registry) in filing of the present appeal by the assessee. 8. Succinctly stated, the assessee who is engaged in the business of transportation had e-filed his return of income for A.Y.2016-17 on 27.02.2017, declaring an income of Rs.8,68,430/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee

KUNDAN SINGH THAKUR, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO-4(1), RAIPUR (ERSTWHILE ITO-4(5), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 477/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), dated 02.09.2024, for the Assessment Year 2015-16, which in turn arises from the order of Income Tax Officer-4(5), (in short “Ld. AO”) u/s 143 of the Act, dated 13.12.2017. 2 Kundan Singh Thakur Vs. ITO-4(1), (Erstwhile-ITO-4(5), Raipur 2. The grounds

SHANTI PARBOILING INDUSTRIES,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.99/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17

97,87,500/- as 'bogus', merely on the basis of statement recorded of third party Shri Kamlesh Kesharwani u/s.131 of Income Tax Act, 1961. The resultant disallowance @ 25% of total purchase from four parties only on the basis of statement of the aforesaid third person (which could not even be rebutted by the Appellant for want of opportunity and cross

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)

97 of the Paper Book respectively. 7.3 There was a conscious application of mind by the Learned A.O and the Learned A.O has taken one possible and plausible view; therefore, the assessment order cannot be said to be erroneous: It's a trite law that where two views are possible and if the A.O. has drawn one of the possible

ADIM JATI SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT, DHORRA,GARIYABAND vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 25/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Adim Jati Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Dhorra Ground Floor, Main Road Dhorra, Gariyaband(C.G)-493889 Pan: Aabaa7991C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle 1(1) Revenue Building, Civil Lines Raipur (C.G.)-492001 ……""यथ" / Respondent

section which kindly be allowed. 3 5. That under the facts and the law the Ld.CIT (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi further erred in confirming the rejection of claim of the appellant for deduction of commission income earned at Rs. 2,73,661 u/s. 80P(2). Prayed that the above income is deductible u/s. 80P(2). 6.That Under the facts

SHRI CHOWARAM DHIWAR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.31/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Chowaram Dhiwar Sector 01, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 006 Pan : Akppd8741C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

97,240, without mentioning any basis for that. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. AO has erred in making addition of Rs.8,99,546 by applying the GP rate @ 6% (as against GP shown as per audited accounts at Rs.57,00,454) on such estimated sales and doing this, again, the, AO has not mentioned

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.)

condone the delay therein involved. On further appeal, it was the claim of the assessee that as it had assailed the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by the A.O u/s.153C of the Act, which was purely an issue of law, therefore, there was no justification on the part of the Tribunal in refusing to consider such significant issue

HUKUM SINGH,AMBIKAPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.136/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Hukum Singh Near Pahuna Shop, Kedarpur, Ambikapur, Sarguja (C.G.) Pan : Atpps6279P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1 (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

delay of 45 days involved in filing of the present appeal, we are of the considered view that as the same had occasioned on account of 4 Hukum Singh Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 bonafide reasons which by no means could be attributed to any intentional lapse on the part of the assessee, therefore, the same merits to be condoned