VIKRANT ROPES PRIVATE LIMITED,BHILAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), BHILAI

In the result Grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.56/Rpr/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Vikrant Ropes Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer- 27, Civic Centre, Bhilai. Vs 1(1), Bhilai. Pan : Aaacv 8071 B Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Prakash Bakliwal(Adv.) & Shri Sangeet Bakliwal – Ca Revenue By Shri Piyush Tripathi – Dr Date Of Hearing 31/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12/06/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Appellant Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-Ii, Raipur Dated 20/01/2020 Emanating From The Order U/S 143(1) Dated 12/01/2017 For Ay 2016-17 Passed By The Asst.Director Of Income Tax(Cpc). The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals: “(1) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned C.I.T.(Appeal)-Ii- Raipur Has Dismissed The Appeal Without Giving Reasonable & Proper Opportunity To The Assessee / Appellant. The Same Order Is Quite Unjustified & Bad, Both In Law & Facts. Vikrant Ropes Pvt. Ltd., [A]

Depreciation Loss of Rs.2200884/- of A.Y. 2015-16 should be set off / carried forward in the subsequent years. (7) That

STEEL ABRASIVE INDUSTRIES LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.96/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 Steel Abrasive Industries Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income 301, Shyam Square Second Floor, Tax, Circle-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) Pandri, Raipur, Raipur-H.O, Raipur-492 001 Pan: Aagcs7905P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.B Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Dated 17.01.2023 Which In Turn Arises From The Order By Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 Dated 30.09.2016 For A.Y.2011-12. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. Ld. Cit (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming Addition Of Rs.1,13,20,940/- Made By Ao, On Account Of Alleged Suppression Of Production Of 467.32Mt. Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Action Of Ao In Rejecting Rectification Application Filed By The Appellant. 2. The Impugned Addition Made By The Ld. A.O. Is Bad In Law, Illegal, Unjustified, Contrary To Facts & Law & Based Upon Recording Of Incorrect Facts & Finding, In Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice & The Same Should Have Been Quashed By The Ld. Cit (Appeals). 3. The Appellant Reserves The Right To Amend, Modify Or Add Any Of The Ground/S Of Appeal.”

set off against current year loss and unabsorbed depreciation and such claim of the assessee was accepted by the department

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

set-aside the order passed by the A.O u/s.143(3) dated 25.12.2019. It was observed by the Pr. CIT that as the A.O ought to have made the addition of the bogus purchases of Rs.1,04,85,751/- as an unexplained expenditure incurred by the assessee u/s.69C of the Act and computed the consequential tax liability as per provisions

AVINASH INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,RAIPUR vs. DY. COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR

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.31/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Avinash Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. (Private Limited Company) Avinash House, Maruti Business Park, G.E Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001. Pan : Aabcj32884H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

set-off against its other income, therefore, its income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment to the said extent, Page 22 to 41 of APB. 19. On the basis of the aforesaid facts the ld. AR has came forth with the present claim before us. It is the claim of the ld. A.R that now when

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), RAIPUR vs. HI-TECH ABRASIVE PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.142/Rpr/2018 (Assessment Year: 2014-2015) Acit, Circle-2(1), Raipur Vs Hi-Tech Abrasive Pvt. Ltd. 740, Sector-B, Urla Industrial Area, Raipur Pan No. :Aaach 5950 M & Cross Objection No.14/Rpr/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.142/Rpr/2018) (Assessment Year: 2014-2015) Hi-Tech Abrasive Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Circle-2(1), Raipur 740, Sector-B, Urla Industrial Area, Raipur Pan No. :Aaach 5950 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R. B. Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 14/07/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19/07/2023

set off the same against the business loss which is not allowable under the Act and thereby claimed higher business loss to the extent of a capital loss incurred by the assessee in the previous year under consideration. Therefore, the claim of higher business loss to the extent of capital loss incurred by the assessee was disallowed and added back

CHANDHOK COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 200/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Chandhok Cold Storage Private Limited Ph No.100/28, Bilaspur Road, Ravigram S.O, Raipur-492 001 Pan : Aadcc8354P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

set off against pre-operative expenses- Held-yes" In the light of above facts and judgements, the addition of Rs. 99,957/- which was interest income on FDR should not be shown as income, since the same relates to the period prior to commencement of business and is in fact in nature of capital receipt. Thus, the Ld. CIT (Appeals

MARUTI CLEAN COAL AND POWER LTD.,RAIPUR vs. PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 55/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Maruti Clean Coal & Power Ltd. Ward No.42, Building No.14, Civil Lines, Near Income Tax Colony, Chhattisgarh-492 001. Pan : Aadcm4810C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By :Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms. Ananya Kapoor & Ms. Soumya Singh, Advocates. Revenue By :Shri P. K Mishra, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2022

setting-off depreciation) a/w. carry- forward of unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.1,55,66,921/-, while for its book profit u/s.115JB witnessed no modification. 4. Subsequently the A.O reopened the concluded assessment of the assessee company u/s.147 of the Act. Notice u/s.148 of the Act, dated 14.03.2018 was issued by the AO to the assessee company. The A.O thereafter framed

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

set u ii) off of loss is claimed was furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139: (iv) disallowance of expenditure [or increase in income] indicated in the (iv) audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return; (v) disallowance of deduction claimed under [section 10AA or under

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

set u ii) off of loss is claimed was furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139: (iv) disallowance of expenditure [or increase in income] indicated in the (iv) audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return; (v) disallowance of deduction claimed under [section 10AA or under

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.)

loss or the 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

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.)

loss or the 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

LAKHICHAND SIDARA,BILASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), BILASPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.180/Rpr/2017 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-2010) Lakhi Chand Sidara, Vs Ito-1(2), Bilaspur Main Road Torwa, Bilaspur (C.G.) Pan No. : Adkps 8800 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

loss or depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed; 4 The instant case falls in clause (c) sub clause (i) of the explanation. I have called the record and have noted the queries raised by the AO. During original assessment proceeding there has been no query about the sale consideration and income had been computed

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.

loss or the 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

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)

loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year. In the appellant case there was information that the appellant's bank accounts were mainly credited through RTGS and subsequently followed by cash withdrawals, and Pradeep Kumar Agrawal vs ITO, Ward- Dhamtari thus, made high value transaction and accordingly, as per provision of the Income

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)

loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year. In the appellant case there was information that the appellant's bank accounts were mainly credited through RTGS and subsequently followed by cash withdrawals, and Pradeep Kumar Agrawal vs ITO, Ward- Dhamtari thus, made high value transaction and accordingly, as per provision of the Income

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)

loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year. In the appellant case there was information that the appellant's bank accounts were mainly credited through RTGS and subsequently followed by cash withdrawals, and Pradeep Kumar Agrawal vs ITO, Ward- Dhamtari thus, made high value transaction and accordingly, as per provision of the Income

M/S KULKARNI & SAHU BUILDCON PVT.LTD.,BHILAI(CG) vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1), BHILAI(CG)

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.30/Rpr/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2012-13 M/S. Kulkarni & Sahu Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. B-495, Cross Street-25, Smriti Nagar, Bhilai-490020 (C.G.) Pan :Aaeck3160C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

depreciation of Rs.1,84,500/- on shuttering materials was declined by the A.O. The A.O after, inter alia, making the aforesaid additions/disallowance, vide his order passed u/s.143(3) dated 30.01.2015 assessed the income of the assessee company at Rs.1,71,93,370/-. 7 M/s. Kulkarni & Sahu Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1) 6. Aggrieved

M/S M/S SUNITA FINLEASE LIMITED,RAIPUR,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1),RAIPUR, RAIPUR (CG)

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No. 07/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Sunita Finlease Limited 2/509, Choubey Colony, Opp. Rajkumar College, G.E Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aadcs2759J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prafulla Pendse, Ar Revenue By : Shri G.N Singh, Dr

depreciation of Vehicles of Rs. 30,000/- Rs.7,59,509/- 4 M/s. Sunita Finlease Limited Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1) After making the aforesaid disallowances, the A.O vide his order passed u/s.143(3) dated 17.02.2016 assessed the gross income of the assessee at Rs.2,41,22,793/-, which after set-off against the brought forward losses