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”].

section 37(1) of the Act; ITAT-Raipur Page 7 of 11 ITA Nos. 260 & 261/RPR/2016 AY 2010-11 & 2011-2012 Business Expenses Sr Head of Expenses Disallowed by AO Amt Claimed in ITR / P&L % of Expenses Amt of Disallowance 1 Spare Parts & Repairs 8,37,302 1% 8,373 2 Tyre, Tube Expenses

FAKIR CHAND AGRAWAL,BILASPUR 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 G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 61/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Fakir Chand Agrawal Plot No. 22 & 23, Anjani Rani Durgavati, Industrial Area, Pendra Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) Pan : Aezpa7821C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Raipur-1. ……""यथ" / Respondent

260 (Bang), wherein after drawing support from the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Gopalkrishnan Rajkumar Vs. Pr. CIT (2022) 445 ITR 557 (Mad.), it was observed as under : “9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We will consider the issue of whether revision proceedings

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)

260 Taxman 298 (SC) Where High Court upheld Tribunal's order confirming addition made to assessee's income in respect of unaccounted business receipts having regard to fact that gross profit declared by assessee was much lesser than ALLAHABAD Kaveri Rice Mills* v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kanpur2006] 157 TAXMAN 376 (ALL.) HIGH COURT OF Section 143 of the Income

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.

260 13.09% 1,31,47,467 10.66% payment 7 Vishal Builders vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) At this stage, we may herein observe that neither of the lower authorities had drawn any adverse inferences as regards the gross profit rate of the assessee for the year under consideration. 9. Apropos the comparative fall in the NP rate

M/S D.C CONSTRUCTION,BILASPUR(CG) vs. DY.. C.I.T. CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR(CG)

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S D.C. Construction, The Dy. Commissioner Of B-1, Parijat Extension, Income Tax-Circle 1(1), Nehru Nagar, Mahima Complex, Bilaspur (C.G.) Vs. Vyapar Vihar, Pan: Aaffd8842E Bilaspur (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri G.S. Agrawal (Ca) Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 09/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/06/2018

260/-. Since, the case was selected for scrutiny notice u/s 143 (2) and 142 (1) were issued and in response to the said notices, the authorized representative of the assessee appeared before the AO and filed written submissions 2 Assessment Year: 2010-11 and other details. It was seen that the assessee had claimed various expenses in P&L account

DY.C.I.T.1(1), RAIPUR (CG) vs. M/S NAVBHARAT PRESS, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member Dcit-1(1), Raipur-1 Vs Navbharat Press, Press Complex, G.E.Road, Raipur(C.G.)-492001 Pan No. : Aadfn 0350 R (Appellant) Tsednepser .. Revenue By : Shri Ajit Kumar Laskar, Dr Assessee By : None(Written Submission) Date Of Hearing : 12/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 15/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri N.S.Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Raipur, Dated 12.06.2014 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :- “1. Whether In Law & On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Interest U/S.36(1)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Of Rs.41,54,811/- As Interest Bearing Funds Were Used For Non-Business Purposes.” 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Derives Income From Printing & Publishing Of Hindi Daily Newspaper “Nav Bharat” & English Daily “Central Chronicle” From Raipur. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,85,77,530/-. Thereafter The Ao Framed The Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Act Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.2,27,32,341/-.

section 36(1)(iii). The A.O. herself at paragraph 4.1 of the order has observed that, "three conditions are required to be satisfied in order to enable the assesses to claim deduction in respect of interest on borrowed capital, namely: (1) that money (capital)must have been borrowed by the assesses. (2)That it must have been borrowed

DY C.I.T..1(1), RAIPUR (CG) vs. SHRI ISMAIL MOHAMMED, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2011-

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Dy. Commissioner Of Shri Ismail Mohammed, Income Tax-1(1), 24/347, Dr. Virdhi Gali Marg, Central Revenue Building, Jawahar Nagar, Civil Lines, Vs. Raipur (C.G.) Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aispm8617R (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Sheetal Shashwat Verma (Dr) Assessee By : None (Written Submission) Date Of Hearing: 05/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2018

260 ITR 637 (Del) and Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of CIT Vs. South India Corporation (Agencies) Ltd. 290 ITR 217 (Mad) are also in favour of the appellant. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case as also decisions cited above, the disallowance made by the A.O. cannot be sustained. Hence, the disallowance is deleted