DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. S.P. BUILDCON PVT. LTD., RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 35 & 38/Rpr/2023) (Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V S.P. Buildcon Private Limited Circle-1(1), S Ff-06, Shyam Plaza, Pandri Bus Stand, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Raipur Pan: Aajcs0653H (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) . (""यथ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Amit M. Jain, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 05-09-2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2023

disallowance of Rs.1,34,83,176/-being non- deduction of tax on deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. S.P. Buildcon

SUBRAMANIAM SWAMINATHAN IYER, BHILAI,DURG vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHILAI, DURG

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.71/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Subramaniam Swaminathan Iyer 12-A/7, Nehru Nagar, Bhilai (C.G.)-490 020 Pan: Anwps2381P

disallowance of Rs. 1,45,75,000/- on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act, disallowance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. MESERS SHREE JAGDAMBA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 37 To 42/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15)

disallowance under s.40(a)(ia) of the Act is also not permissible in law in these facts and in the absence of any incriminating material. Consequently, the additions made by the AO has been rightly quashed by the CIT(A) and reversed. We thus see no error in the order of the CIT(A) and thus decline to interfere

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. MESERS SHREE JAGDAMBA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 37 To 42/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15)

disallowance under s.40(a)(ia) of the Act is also not permissible in law in these facts and in the absence of any incriminating material. Consequently, the additions made by the AO has been rightly quashed by the CIT(A) and reversed. We thus see no error in the order of the CIT(A) and thus decline to interfere

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. MESERS SHREE JAGDAMBA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 37 To 42/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15)

disallowance under s.40(a)(ia) of the Act is also not permissible in law in these facts and in the absence of any incriminating material. Consequently, the additions made by the AO has been rightly quashed by the CIT(A) and reversed. We thus see no error in the order of the CIT(A) and thus decline to interfere

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. MESERS SHREE JAGDAMBA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 37 To 42/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15)

disallowance under s.40(a)(ia) of the Act is also not permissible in law in these facts and in the absence of any incriminating material. Consequently, the additions made by the AO has been rightly quashed by the CIT(A) and reversed. We thus see no error in the order of the CIT(A) and thus decline to interfere

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. MESERS SHREE JAGDAMBA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 37 To 42/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15)

disallowance under s.40(a)(ia) of the Act is also not permissible in law in these facts and in the absence of any incriminating material. Consequently, the additions made by the AO has been rightly quashed by the CIT(A) and reversed. We thus see no error in the order of the CIT(A) and thus decline to interfere

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. MESERS SHREE JAGDAMBA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 37 To 42/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15)

disallowance under s.40(a)(ia) of the Act is also not permissible in law in these facts and in the absence of any incriminating material. Consequently, the additions made by the AO has been rightly quashed by the CIT(A) and reversed. We thus see no error in the order of the CIT(A) and thus decline to interfere

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

dividend income yielding unquoted equity shares, therefore, no disallowance of any part of its claim for deduction of interest expenditure was called for u/s 14A r.w Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income tax Rules, 1963. Our aforesaid view is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of HDFC Bank Vs. DCIT

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

dividend income yielding unquoted equity shares, therefore, no disallowance of any part of its claim for deduction of interest expenditure was called for u/s 14A r.w Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income tax Rules, 1963. Our aforesaid view is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of HDFC Bank Vs. DCIT

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

dividend income, but he had not disallowed on a suo motto basis any part of the interest expenditure for earning of such exempt income. The CIT(Appeals) finding no infirmity in the disallowance made by the A.O u/s.14A of the Act, thus, upheld the same. 8. Apropos the addition of Rs.86,795/- made by the A.O on account of unexplained

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

dividend income, but he had not disallowed on a suo motto basis any part of the interest expenditure for earning of such exempt income. The CIT(Appeals) finding no infirmity in the disallowance made by the A.O u/s.14A of the Act, thus, upheld the same. 8. Apropos the addition of Rs.86,795/- made by the A.O on account of unexplained

M/S SMS SHIVNATH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,DURG(CG) vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.87/Rpr/2017 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Acit-2(1), Bhilai Vs M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.,Toll Plaza, Near Dhamdhanaka, Durg. Pan No. :Aadcs 2258 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.107/Rpr/2016 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Vs Pr.Cit-2, Raipur Pvt Ltd.,Toll Plaza, Near Dhamdhanaka, Durg. Pan No. :Aadcs 2258 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

disallowance of the interest to increase the eligible profit u/s 80IA, so as to claim higher amount of deduction u/s 80IA than the same is available ordinarily on eligible business, is unsustainable. Ld CIT(A) had correctly, appropriately and categorically decided the issue, thus we found no infirmity in the order of Ld CIT(A), the same deserves

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-2(1)BHILAI, BHILAI(CG) vs. M/S SMS SHIVNATH INFRASSTRUCTURE PVT LTD., DURG, DURG(CG)

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.87/Rpr/2017 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Acit-2(1), Bhilai Vs M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.,Toll Plaza, Near Dhamdhanaka, Durg. Pan No. :Aadcs 2258 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.107/Rpr/2016 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Vs Pr.Cit-2, Raipur Pvt Ltd.,Toll Plaza, Near Dhamdhanaka, Durg. Pan No. :Aadcs 2258 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

disallowance of the interest to increase the eligible profit u/s 80IA, so as to claim higher amount of deduction u/s 80IA than the same is available ordinarily on eligible business, is unsustainable. Ld CIT(A) had correctly, appropriately and categorically decided the issue, thus we found no infirmity in the order of Ld CIT(A), the same deserves

THE DY. CIT-1(2),, RAIPUR (CG) vs. M/S. SAUMYA MINING LTD.,, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

dividend earned on shares by assessee was from its investments in shares out of its own funds and consequently question of invoking section I4A to disallow expenditure would not arise - Tribunal upheld order of Commissioner (Appeals) - Whether since revenue did not challenge finding of fact recorded by Commissioner (Appeals) before Tribunal, no question of law arose for consideration before High

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

dividend income during the year under consideration, therefore, no disallowance u/s.14A of the Act was warranted in its case. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations finding no infirmity in the view taken by the CIT(Appeals) uphold the same. Thus, the Ground of Appeal No.1 raised by the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

M/S M/S NAV BHARAT PRESS,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3(1), RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.06/Rpr/2017 & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.162/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 & 2015-2016) M/S Nava Bharat Press, Vs Acit, Cirlce-3(1), Raipur Press Complex, G.E.Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pan No. : Aadfn 0350 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

dividend earned by the assessee during the relevant AY. Thus this ground of assessee is partly allowed. 24. Next Ground: Disallowance u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act in ITA 162/RPR/2019 for AY 2015-16. 25. Disallowance of PF paid beyond the due date under the respective Act but within the due date of filing the return along with the disallowance

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKRI SAMITI MARYADIT, DHARSIWA,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

dividend income u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act. 4. Disallowance of the assessee’s claim for Rs.1,66,716/- deduction u/s. 80P(2) of the Act. After making the aforesaid disallowances, the A.O vide his order u/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 23.11.2019 assessed the total income of the assessee society at Rs. 2,45,216/-. 4. Aggrieved

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT, CHAMPAJHAR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

dividend income u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act. 4. Disallowance of the assessee’s claim for Rs.1,66,716/- deduction u/s. 80P(2) of the Act. After making the aforesaid disallowances, the A.O vide his order u/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 23.11.2019 assessed the total income of the assessee society at Rs. 2,45,216/-. 4. Aggrieved