GURUSUKH VINTRADE SERVICES PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.572/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2020-21 Gurusukh Vintrade Services Private Limited 6Th Floor, Shop No.15-16, Currency Tower, G.E Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aadcg9611M

250(4) & (6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). Secondly, it was submitted by the Ld. Counsel that the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC has failed to adjudicate the additional ground which was raised by the assessee a/w. written submission before the first appellate authority which reads as follows: “ADDITIONAL GROUND The Assessing Officer made a total

AADITYA CONSTRUCTION,KORBA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-I KORBA, KORBA

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: 536/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15) Aaditya Construction, Vs Income Tax Officer- 1, Korba 56, Indira Complex, Transport Nagar, Mahanadi Extension Complex, Korba-495001, C.G. Ghantaghar, Niharika Road, Kashi Nagar, Korba-495677, C.G. Pan: Aapfa5390N (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 : 08/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 16/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: - “1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in deciding appeal without considering record and evidence available. Resultantly, appellate order is illegal & unsustainable. 2. Order passed by Ld. CIT(A) s illegal in as much as the same has been passed without adjudicating merits of case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), RAIPUR vs. PSA CONSTRUCTION, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

250(4) while deleting Rs.2,32,59,2024. GR-3CIT appeal Ignored decision held in the case of Awdhesh Pratap sing vs Vs CIT 201 ITR 406( All) on rejection of books of account Gr-4 CIT A violated rule 46 by admit ding additional evidences. Gr-5 CIT A errored in ignoring contradictory facts stated by the Shri Sanjay

BAJRANG LAL AGRAWAL,SURAJPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, AMBIKAPUR, AMBIKAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 260/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Bajrang Lal Agrawal Aman Cold Storage, Bhaiyathan Road, Surajpur C.G-497 229 Pan : Adypa3583F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambikapur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

section 68, treating it to be unexplained income of appellant. The addition/disallowance made by the A.O and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is arbitrary, baseless and not justified. 2. The appellant reserves the right to add, amend or modify any of the ground/s of appeal.” 2. At the very outset I find that the present appeal is time barred

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.

250 as passed by the Ld.CIT (Appeals) is bad in law as well as on facts. 2. That the reopening is invalid based on change of opinion as the facts of purchase of land worth Rs.4,11,000/- was brought to the notice of A.O. in the original assessment. No new material was available to the A.O. – ITAT Raipur

SOUTH EASTERN COAL FIELDS LIMITED,,BILASPUR vs. ADDL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,RANGE-1,, BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble

250(6) of the Income (South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.) Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") for the A.Y. 2008-09. 2. Though the Assessee vide application/letter dated 27/04/2019 raised an additional ground, however the same remained undisposed of while adjudicating the instant appeal on dated 06/11/2019 by the Co-ordinate Bench, therefore, this appeal was recalled vide

PRADEEP KUMAR AGRAWAL, DHAMTARI,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 158, 159 & 160/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18)

250 of the Income Tax Act, (in short “the Act”), for the AY 2015- 16, 2016-17 & 2017-18, all passed on 19.02.2024, which in turn arises from the separate orders u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, passed by Income Tax Officers, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, all dated 26.03.2022. Pradeep Kumar Agrawal vs ITO, Ward- Dhamtari

PRADEEP KUMAR AGRAWAL, DHAMTARI,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 158, 159 & 160/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18)

250 of the Income Tax Act, (in short “the Act”), for the AY 2015- 16, 2016-17 & 2017-18, all passed on 19.02.2024, which in turn arises from the separate orders u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, passed by Income Tax Officers, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, all dated 26.03.2022. Pradeep Kumar Agrawal vs ITO, Ward- Dhamtari

PRADEEP KUMAR AGRAWAL, DHAMTARI,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 158, 159 & 160/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18)

250 of the Income Tax Act, (in short “the Act”), for the AY 2015- 16, 2016-17 & 2017-18, all passed on 19.02.2024, which in turn arises from the separate orders u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, passed by Income Tax Officers, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, all dated 26.03.2022. Pradeep Kumar Agrawal vs ITO, Ward- Dhamtari

CHHATTISGARH STATE POWER GENERATION CO. LTD.,RAIPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CPC), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.82/Rpr/2021 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2018-2019) Chhattisgarh State Power Vs Dcit(Cpc), Bengaluru Generation Co. Ltd., Ground Floor, Vidyut Sewa Bhawan, Dangania, Raipur (C.G.)-492001 Pan No. : Aadcc 5772 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) ..

depreciation shown in ITR & computation of total income of Rs. 2487,42,94,544/- against income assessed u/s 143(1). 5. The appellant reserves the right to add, amend or alter any ground or grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. 2. Out of the above grounds, ground No.4 has not been pressed by the assessee, therefore, the ground

PANCHSHEEL SOLVENT PVT. LTD., RAJANANDGAON,RAJANANDGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Appeal is allowed, partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 110/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2016-17)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), dated 07.02.2024 for the Assessment Years 2016-17, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-2, Raipur (in short “Ld. AO”), under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, dated 28.12.2018. 2 Panchsheel Solvent Pvt. Ltd., Rajnandgaon vs ACIT

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. MAHAMAYA STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 62/Rpr/2018) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14)

Depreciation 161.78 328.26 865.20 731.82 542.46 527.22 Cash Profit 931.18 1517.75 1958.32 1946.79 1389.44 739.35 Table Showing Proportion of Investment to Cash Profit earned by the assessee during the F.Y in which investments were made Cash Profit during the Investment Investment to Cash Profit F.Y year (Rs.in Lacs) Ratio(%) (Rs. in Lacs) ITA No. 62/RPR/2018 (ACIT vs. Mahamaya Steel Industries

SHRI SHRI AJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL,AMBIKAPUR (CG) vs. THE INCOOME TAX OFFICER, AMBIKAPUR (CG)

Appeals of the assessee are allowed in terms of our aforesaid terms, with no order as to cost

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 260 & 261/Rpr/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Ajay Kumar Agrawal, Juna Gaddi Road, Po: Ambikapur (C.G.) Pan : Acqpa 4988 B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Office, Kharsia Road, Po: Ambikapur (C.G) .……""थ" / Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Shri G. S. Agrawal Revenue By : Shri G. N. Singh सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 04/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14/03/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Jamlappa D. Battull, Am; The Present Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The First Appellate Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax - Appeals, Bilaspur [For Short “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Vide Order Dt 21/03/2016, Which In Turn Sprung From The Assessment Order [For Short “Ao”] Dt 04/03/2013 & 23/01/2014 Passed For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2010- 2011 & 2011-2012 By The Ld Assessing Officer [For Short “Ld Ao”] U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”].

250 vide order dt 21/03/2016, which in turn sprung from the assessment order [for short “AO”] dt 04/03/2013 & 23/01/2014 passed for assessment year [for short “AY”] 2010- 2011 & 2011-2012 by the Ld Assessing Officer [for short “Ld AO”] u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [for short “the Act”]. ITAT-Raipur Page

SHRI SHRI AJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL,AMBIKAPUR (CG) vs. THE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMBIKAPUR (CG)

Appeals of the assessee are allowed in terms of our aforesaid terms, with no order as to cost

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 260 & 261/Rpr/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Ajay Kumar Agrawal, Juna Gaddi Road, Po: Ambikapur (C.G.) Pan : Acqpa 4988 B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Office, Kharsia Road, Po: Ambikapur (C.G) .……""थ" / Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Shri G. S. Agrawal Revenue By : Shri G. N. Singh सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 04/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14/03/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Jamlappa D. Battull, Am; The Present Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The First Appellate Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax - Appeals, Bilaspur [For Short “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Vide Order Dt 21/03/2016, Which In Turn Sprung From The Assessment Order [For Short “Ao”] Dt 04/03/2013 & 23/01/2014 Passed For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2010- 2011 & 2011-2012 By The Ld Assessing Officer [For Short “Ld Ao”] U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”].

250 vide order dt 21/03/2016, which in turn sprung from the assessment order [for short “AO”] dt 04/03/2013 & 23/01/2014 passed for assessment year [for short “AY”] 2010- 2011 & 2011-2012 by the Ld Assessing Officer [for short “Ld AO”] u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [for short “the Act”]. ITAT-Raipur Page

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

250 (Karnataka) (ii). Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. PCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bombay)(FB) (iii). CIT Vs. Samson Perinchery (2007) 392 ITR 4 (Bombay) (iv). Pr. CIT (Central) Vs. Golden Peace Hotels and Resorts (P) Ltd. (2021) 124 tamnn.com 249 (SC) (v). PCIT Vs. Goa Coastal Resorts and Recreation (P) Ltd. (2021) 130 taxmann.com 379 (SC) (vi). Dilip

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), BILASPUR vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED, BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

250 (Karnataka) (ii). Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. PCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bombay)(FB) (iii). CIT Vs. Samson Perinchery (2007) 392 ITR 4 (Bombay) (iv). Pr. CIT (Central) Vs. Golden Peace Hotels and Resorts (P) Ltd. (2021) 124 tamnn.com 249 (SC) (v). PCIT Vs. Goa Coastal Resorts and Recreation (P) Ltd. (2021) 130 taxmann.com 379 (SC) (vi). Dilip

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

250 (Karnataka) (ii). Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. PCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bombay)(FB) (iii). CIT Vs. Samson Perinchery (2007) 392 ITR 4 (Bombay) (iv). Pr. CIT (Central) Vs. Golden Peace Hotels and Resorts (P) Ltd. (2021) 124 tamnn.com 249 (SC) (v). PCIT Vs. Goa Coastal Resorts and Recreation (P) Ltd. (2021) 130 taxmann.com 379 (SC) (vi). Dilip

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED,BILASPUR vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

250 (Karnataka) (ii). Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. PCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bombay)(FB) (iii). CIT Vs. Samson Perinchery (2007) 392 ITR 4 (Bombay) (iv). Pr. CIT (Central) Vs. Golden Peace Hotels and Resorts (P) Ltd. (2021) 124 tamnn.com 249 (SC) (v). PCIT Vs. Goa Coastal Resorts and Recreation (P) Ltd. (2021) 130 taxmann.com 379 (SC) (vi). Dilip

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED,BILASPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

250 (Karnataka) (ii). Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. PCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bombay)(FB) (iii). CIT Vs. Samson Perinchery (2007) 392 ITR 4 (Bombay) (iv). Pr. CIT (Central) Vs. Golden Peace Hotels and Resorts (P) Ltd. (2021) 124 tamnn.com 249 (SC) (v). PCIT Vs. Goa Coastal Resorts and Recreation (P) Ltd. (2021) 130 taxmann.com 379 (SC) (vi). Dilip