SHUBH KARAN MAHNOT, AMBIKAPUR,AMBIKAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-AMBIKAPUR, AMBIKAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 155/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shubh Karan Mahnot Prop. M/S. Bikaner Agencies, Tulshi Chowk, Near Primary School, Gangapur, Ambikapur (C.G.)-497 001 Pan : Aalhs2528G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- Ambikapur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

disallowance under sub-section (3) of section 40A shall be made and no payment shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of business or profession under sub-section (3A) of section 40A where a payment or aggregate of the payments made to a person in a day, otherwise than by an account payee cheque drawn on a bank

M/S. G.P. INFRAVENTURES ,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(4), RAIPUR

The appeal of the department stands disposed off

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No.76/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), V M/S G.P. Infraventures, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, S Shree Tower, Shankar Nagar, Central Revenue Building, Raipur (C.G.) Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aanfg6074B (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) : (""यथ" / Respondent) (Ita No.94/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S G.P. Infraventures, V Income Tax Officer-1(4), Shree Tower, Shankar Nagar, S Raipur Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aanfg6074B (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of : 23.11.2023 7Pronouncement

disallowance u/s 40A (3) of the IT Act on account of amount paid towards purchase of land which is stock-in trade of the assessee and claimed as expenditure as the assessee had not brought anything before the Assessing officer which showed that the cash payments were made out of business expediency? 4. "Whether on the facts and circumstances

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), RAIPUR vs. MESERS G P INFRAVENTURES, RAIPUR

The appeal of the department stands disposed off

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No.76/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), V M/S G.P. Infraventures, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, S Shree Tower, Shankar Nagar, Central Revenue Building, Raipur (C.G.) Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aanfg6074B (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) : (""यथ" / Respondent) (Ita No.94/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S G.P. Infraventures, V Income Tax Officer-1(4), Shree Tower, Shankar Nagar, S Raipur Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aanfg6074B (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of : 23.11.2023 7Pronouncement

disallowance u/s 40A (3) of the IT Act on account of amount paid towards purchase of land which is stock-in trade of the assessee and claimed as expenditure as the assessee had not brought anything before the Assessing officer which showed that the cash payments were made out of business expediency? 4. "Whether on the facts and circumstances

NANESH PROJECTS,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

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

13. Admittedly, a notice u/s.143(1)(a) of the Act, dated 21.01.2019, wherein the assessee was asked to explain about the errors/incorrect claims/inconsistencies pertaining to certain payments disallowable u/s.43B & 36(1)(va) of the Act. In response, the assessee submitted its clarification on the issue immediately on 21.01.2019 itself, but the same was not considered while framing the intimation u/s.143

FIVE STARCONSTRUCTION COMPANY,BHILAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), BHILAI

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.45/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Five Star Construction Company Plot No.96-97, Light Industrial Area, Chawani Chowk, Bhilai (C.G)-490026 Pan : Aaaff4316L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

Section 145(3) of the Act. The A.O after rejecting the books of 9 Five Star Construction Company Vs. DCIT-1(1), Bhilai accounts of the assessee proceeded with to assess its income in the manner provided in Sec. 144 of the Act and made the following additions/disallowances:- S. No. Particulars Amount (In Rs.) 1. Disallowance of the excess

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. MURLI KUMAR AGRAWAL (HUF), RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 161/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Murli Kumar Agrawal (Huf) Konark Industries Paragaon, Paragaon, Nayapara, Rajim-493 881 Pan : Aaehm7729L ……""यथ" / Respondent

Section 40A(3) of the Act could not have been triggered by the A.O for disallowing any part of expenditure that was incurred by the assessee towards purchase of rice for the reason that the same were saved by exceptions carved out in Rule 6DD(k) and Rule 6DD(j) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. In sum and substance

ACIT (CENTRAL), BILASPUR vs. M/S. BARBARIK PROJECT LTD., SURAJPUR

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed, and Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.70/Rpr/2021 & Cross Objection No.20/Rpr/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.70/Rpr/2021) िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 V. Acit (Central) M/S. Barbarik Project Ltd., Bilaspur Ward No.13, Nehru Park, Surajpur (C.G.) [Pan: Aadcb 4662 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By Shri S. R. Rao, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2023

disallowances making the total assessed income to the tune of Rs.6,48,16,900/-. 4. Aggrieved with the order of Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act, assessee preferred an appeal before Learned CIT(A), wherein relief was granted by Learned CIT(A) on merits to the assessee. However, legal additional grounds of the appeal raised

HARSHDEEP SINGH JUNEJA,RAIPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 106/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Harshdeep Singh Juneja 21/537, Katora Talab Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Acupj6153B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

disallowance under sub-section (3) of section 40A shall be made and no payment shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of business or profession under sub-section (3A) of section 40A where a payment or aggregate of payments made to a person in a day, otherwise than by an account payee cheque drawn on a bank

PRADEEP KUMAR DHURVE,DURG vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 302/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pradeep Kumar Dhurve Near Pawan Kirana Store, Sangram Chowk, Prem Nagar, Sikola Bhata, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan : Aanpd6067H

3. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without success. The CIT(Appeals) drawing support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (SC) 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC) approved the view taken by the A.O and upheld the disallowances by observing, as under

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

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 43/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. South Eastern Coalfields Limited Seepat Road, Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495006 Pan: Aadcs2066E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

section 3 M/s. South Eastern Coalfields LimitedVs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur 246A(1)(q) of the Act, thereby making the proceedings liable to be quashed. 3 That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in issuing show cause notice require appearance on a public holiday which renders the penalty

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIEDS LIMITED,BILASPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BILASPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 314/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. South Eastern Coalfields Limited Seepat Road, Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495006 Pan: Aadcs2066E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

section 270A(9) in the penalty show- 3 M/s. South Eastern Coalfields Limited Vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur cause notice: rendering penalty order passed by him bad-in- law, which is liable to be quashed. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred by computed misreported income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. M/S SUNIL SPONGE PVT. LTD., RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.73/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Central Circle)-1, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Sunil Sponge Pvt. Ltd. H. No.11, Jalvihar Colony, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aahcs7999A ……""यथ" / Respondent

disallowed to determine book profits under Section 115JB of the Act. The above query of the Assessing Officer was responded to by the Petitioner in great detail by its letters dated 10 October 2017 and 21 December 2017. It justified its claim for deductions by placing reliance upon the decisions of the Courts. in support of its contention that they

PADMA DHURWAY, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), BHILAI, DURG

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 272/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Padma Dhurway, Near Pawan Kirana Store, Sangram Chowk, Prem Nagar, Sikola Bhata, Durg (C.G.)-491 001. Pan : Aarpd5814C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

3. Thereafter, the return of income filed by the assessee was processed by the Centralized Processing Center (CPC), Bengaluru, vide an intimation issued u/s.143(1) of the Act dated 08.01.2020. As is discernible from the records, the CPC, while processing the return of income of the assessee, had triggered the provisions of Section

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) ..

section 32, 40(a)(ia), 40A(3), 43B etc. of the Act and other specific disallowances, related to the business activity against which the Chapter VI-A deduction has been claimed result in enhancement of the profit of the eligible business and that deduction under chapter VI-A is admissible on the profits so enhanced by the disallowance

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) ..

section 32, 40(a)(ia), 40A(3), 43B etc. of the Act and other specific disallowances, related to the business activity against which the Chapter VI-A deduction has been claimed result in enhancement of the profit of the eligible business and that deduction under chapter VI-A is admissible on the profits so enhanced by the disallowance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1(1), RAIPUR vs. BHARAT AGRO INDUSTRIES, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed as above

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am

3) of the Act, whereas the issue before us in present case is different. Therefore, we hold that the said decision does not come to the rescue of the appellant assessee in the present case. Keeping in view the facts in entirety, we, without commenting on the merit of the disallowance, set aside the finding

MICKEY SHRIVASTVA,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3(1), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section (3) if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within that period. On perusal of the application of the assessee for condonation of delay along cause that has prevented the assessee in filing the present appeal. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy reported

RAVI SHERWANI,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4(1), RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 64/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ravi Sherwani H-26, Rajeev Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Azbps6703J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-4(1), Raipur (C.G.)

disallowing cost of improvement of Rs.1,11,02,013.00 without going through actual facts and circumstances. 4. The appellant reserves the right to amend, modify or add any of the grounds of appeal.” Also, the assessee has raised an additional ground of appeal before us, which reads as under: “On the facts and circumstances of the case

BHUNESHWAR PRASAD SAHU, BALODA BAZAR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- BHATAPARA, BHATAPARA

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed in terms of our observations above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.109/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Bhuneshwar Prasad Sahu Main Road, Raseda, Baloda Bazar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Bayps7721N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Khapradih, Bhatapara ……""यथ" / Respondent

3 is general in nature and needs no adjudication.” 4. The assessee, being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals), has carried the matter in appeal before us. 5. We have heard the ld. Authorized representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on 8 Bhuneshwar Prasad Sahu Vs. ITO, Khapradih