RAHUL BAJPAI,IDGAH CHOWK vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), SHRI RAM PLAZA

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.348/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Rahul Bajpai Idgah Chowk, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh-495 001 Pan: Aexpb4410L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereinafter in the section 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) Provided that where an assessment under sub section 3 of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action should be taken after

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)-1, RAIPUR vs. M/S. CHHATTISGARH STEEL & POWER LIMITED, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 96/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

142, Sahid Smarak, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) PAN: AACCC7479G ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : Ms. Puja Bajaj, CA Revenue by : Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 05.06.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date of Pronouncement : 01.08.2023 2 ACIT, CC-1, Raipur (C.G.) Vs. M/s. Chhattisgarh Steel & Power Limited आदेश / ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM: The present

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I, RAIPUR vs. MESERS CHHATTISGARH STEEL & POWER LIMITED, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.91 & 92/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Chhattisgarh Steel & Power Limited. 142, Sahid Smarak, G.E Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaccc7479G ……""यथ" / Respondent

142, Sahid Smarak, G.E Road, Raipur (C.G.) PAN : AACCC7479G ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : Ms. Puja Bajaj, CA Revenue by : Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing :05.06.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date of Pronouncement : 18.07.2023 2 M/s. Chhattisgarh Steel & Power Ltd.Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Raipur ITA Nos. 91 & 92/RPR/2020 आदेश / ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL)-I, RAIPUR vs. MESERS CHHATTISGARH STEEL & POWER LIMITED, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.91 & 92/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Chhattisgarh Steel & Power Limited. 142, Sahid Smarak, G.E Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaccc7479G ……""यथ" / Respondent

142, Sahid Smarak, G.E Road, Raipur (C.G.) PAN : AACCC7479G ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : Ms. Puja Bajaj, CA Revenue by : Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing :05.06.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date of Pronouncement : 18.07.2023 2 M/s. Chhattisgarh Steel & Power Ltd.Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Raipur ITA Nos. 91 & 92/RPR/2020 आदेश / ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. M/S SUNIL SPONGE PVT. LTD., RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.73/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Central Circle)-1, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Sunil Sponge Pvt. Ltd. H. No.11, Jalvihar Colony, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aahcs7999A ……""यथ" / Respondent

depreciation from the net profit to arrive at the book profits under Section 115JB of the Act. It 12 DCIT (Central Circle-1), Raipur Vs. M/s. Sunil Sponge Pvt. Ltd. was also explained that under subsection 6 of Section 211 of the Companies Act; reference to a balance sheet or profit and loss account would also include any notes thereto

ARUN KUMAR VERMA, BHILAI,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(2), BHILAI, DURG

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.79 & 80/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-2020 Arun Kumar Verma Plot No.152, Telgu Para, Maroda Tank, Maroda, Bhilai (C.G.) Pan : Abkpv0530H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

142, such return shall be processed in the following manner, namely:— (a) the total income or loss shall be computed after making the following (a) adjustments, namely:— (i) any arithmetical error in the return; 22[***] (ii) an incorrect claim. if such incorrect claim is apparent from any (ii) information in the return; (iii) disallowance of loss claimed, if return

ARUN KUMAR VERMA, BHILAI,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(2), BHILAI, DURG

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.79 & 80/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-2020 Arun Kumar Verma Plot No.152, Telgu Para, Maroda Tank, Maroda, Bhilai (C.G.) Pan : Abkpv0530H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

142, such return shall be processed in the following manner, namely:— (a) the total income or loss shall be computed after making the following (a) adjustments, namely:— (i) any arithmetical error in the return; 22[***] (ii) an incorrect claim. if such incorrect claim is apparent from any (ii) information in the return; (iii) disallowance of loss claimed, if return

JINDAL POWER LIMITEED,RAIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOE TAX , CIRCLE 1(1), BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.199/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09

section 37 of the Act. 2. That without prejudice, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the claim of the assessee is of Rs.35,36,07,322/- in respect of dam and hence addition of Rs.70,72,14,643/- is wrongly made and is highly excessive and hence cannot be sustained in law.” 2. Succinctly stated

EARTHSTAHL & ALLOYS LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.478/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Earthstahl & Alloys Limited 5B Mohini Merline, Jayshree Vihar Pandritarai Mandi Gate, Ravigram S.O, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Aacce3567F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this 'section has been made for the relevant 4 Earthstahl & Alloys Limited

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. USHA DEVI SINGHANIA, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.269 & 270/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this 'section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR vs. USHA DEVI SINGHANIA, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.269 & 270/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this 'section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

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

depreciation on the same) 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals), wherein the latter observed that after framing the impugned assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 29.11.2007, the income of the 4 DCIT, Circle-4(1), Raipur Vs. M/s. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board assessee company was reassessed vide order passed

BHAGWANDAS JAGDISH PRASAD,BAGBAHARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MAHASAMUND, MAHASAMUND

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.412 & 413/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bhagwandas Jagdish Prasad Petrol Pump, Main Road, Bagbahara-493 449 (C.G.) Pan: Aamfb0173H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Mahasamund (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this 'section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

BHAGWANDAS JAGDISH PRASAD, BAGBAHARA,BAGBAHARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MAHASAMUND, MAHASAMUND

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.412 & 413/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bhagwandas Jagdish Prasad Petrol Pump, Main Road, Bagbahara-493 449 (C.G.) Pan: Aamfb0173H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Mahasamund (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this 'section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

M/S GOPAL RICE INDUSTRIES, ,DHAMTARI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(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. 291/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Gopal Rice Industries Village- Sambalpur, Dhamtari (C.G.)-493 773 Pan : Aabfi4303F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

2) of the Act, dated 26.09.2014. However, it was for the reason that the assessee did not comply with the notice(s) u/s 142(1) of the Act that the A.O was constrained to frame the assessment vide his order passed u/s.144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 5 M/s. Gopal Rice Industries Vs. DCIT-2(1) 31.03.2015, wherein

AVANINDRA NATH AGRAWAL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.128/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Avanindra Nath Agrawal 1063, Akansha, Geeta Nagar, Opportunity. Anupam Nagar Garden, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aehpa0353D

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this 'section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BILASPUR vs. M/S JAGANNATHDAS HARICHANDMAL JEWELLERS PVT. LTD, RAIGARH

In the result appeal of revenue is partly allowed in terms of our observations herein above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.106/Rpr/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Jagannathdas Harichandmal Income Tax (Central), Bilaspur Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Sadar Bazar, Raigarh (C.G.) Pan: Aaccj2840G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Choudhary N.C. Roy, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 14/07/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Bhopal, Dated 16.03.2022 Which In Turn Arises From The Order By Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Dated 30.12.2018 For A.Y.2012-13. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: “ 1. Whether On The Fact & In The Circumstances Of The Case In Law, While Holding Assessment Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of Act As Invalid & Void-Ab-Initio, The Ld. Cit(A) Completely Ignored The Fact That During The Course Of Survey, The Assessee Failed To Discharge Its Burden In Establishing 'The Identity, Creditworthiness & Genuineness Of The Transactions As Required U/S 68 Of The Income Tac Act. Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Ignoring That Reassessment Proceeding Are Based On Fresh Facts/Information Rather Than Change Of Opinion. 2. Whether On The Fact & In The Circumstances Of The Case In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Ignoring That Confirmation Of Concealment Of Income/Disclosure Made In Statement Recorded During Survey U/S 133A Of Act Is An Information, Though Not Conclusive, Which May Be Used In Regular Assessment Or Reassessment Proceedings.

depreciation from the net profit to arrive at the book profits under Section 115JB of the Act. It was also explained that under subsection 6 of Section 211 of the Companies Act, reference to a balance sheet or profit and loss account would also include any notes thereto or documents annexed thereto. Thus the notes to the account should

SHRI SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR AGRAWAL, KORBA,KORBA(CG) vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,RANGE KORBA, KORBA(CG)

In the result, appeal of the assesee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 93 & 94/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Prop. Of M/S. Shrikishan & Co., T.P Nagar, Korba (C.G.) Pan : Acgpa4350B .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

depreciation was claimed by the assessee on any of the properties, thus, it proved that those were not being used for any business purpose. The CIT(Appeals) holding a conviction that the AO had rightly invoked Sec. 23(4)(b) of the Act and after considering the location and value of the respective properties determined their Annual Lettable Value

SHRI SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR AGRAWAL, KORBA,KORBA(CG) vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,RANGE KORBA, KORBA(CG)

In the result, appeal of the assesee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 93 & 94/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Prop. Of M/S. Shrikishan & Co., T.P Nagar, Korba (C.G.) Pan : Acgpa4350B .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

depreciation was claimed by the assessee on any of the properties, thus, it proved that those were not being used for any business purpose. The CIT(Appeals) holding a conviction that the AO had rightly invoked Sec. 23(4)(b) of the Act and after considering the location and value of the respective properties determined their Annual Lettable Value