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

253(5) of the IT Act. The rejection of application for condonation of delay has serious civil consequences upon the status of the Society, as by rejection of the application of the appellant Society, the Society would not be able to claim tax exemption under the provisions contained in Sections 11 & 12 of the IT Act, and that

M/S POORNACHAND AGRAWAL, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 104/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Pooranchand Agrawal C/O. Bagadia Enterprises, Near Shiv Talkies, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495001 Pan : Aaifp8483G

4 M/s. Pooranchand Agrawal Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 the assessment order and directed the A.O. to frame the assessment after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. For the sake of clarity, the relevant observations of the Pr. CIT are culled out as under: “8. The reply of the assessee dated 02.03.2023 has been gone through

VISHAL BUILDERS, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.263/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vishal Builders 7/619, Gawri Bhawan, Fafadih Naka, Raipur-492001(C.G.) Pan : Aaefv1401G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Raipur, C.G.

4,86,121 0.34% 6,68,296 0.36% 13,06,644 1.06% on secured loan 8 Vishal Builders vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) To salary 14,25,700 1.01% 24,03,790 1.29% 36,38,417 2.95% expenses 10. Considering the aforesaid facts, we find substance in the claim of the Ld. AR that the comparative analysis

M.J. STEELS PVT. LTD.,RAIPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 28/Rpr/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-2016

253. ITAT-Raipur Page 1 of 11 AY – 2015-2016 2. The short issue under this appeals is that, the appellant company challenged the validity of revisionary action directing the AO for fresh adjudication against an apparent error in applying the provisions of section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 3. The appellant raised a solitary legal ground

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR vs. M/S SANJAY AGRAWAL, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaiआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 82/Rpr/2018 Co No.05/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Sanjay Agrawal 35-36, Millenium Plaza, G. E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aapfs0532E ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Veekaas S. Sharma, Ar Revenue By : Shri G.N Singh, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 24.05.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 09.06.2022

4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). It was observed by the CIT(Appeals) that the AO had rejected the audited books of accounts of the assessee on the basis of vague observations and without pointing out any substantial lapse which would have justified triggering of the provisions

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. M/S RADHESHYAM AGRAWAL , RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaiआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 42/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Central)-2, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Radheshyam Agarwal L-24, Avanti Vihar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aacfr8916J ……""यथ" / Respondent

4), dated 28.09.2015, viz. (i). that the assessee had suo-motto rejected his books of accounts for AYs 2006-07 to 2012-13 and had offered to declare his income from contact business for all of the said years @10% of the amount of gross contract receipts; and (ii). that the Standard operating rate (“SoR”, for short) was usually around