MANILAL DAYALJI & CO,DHAMTARI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE 2(1), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.290/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Manilal Dayalji & Co. Gola Bidi Works, Sadar Bazar, Dhamtari (C.G.) Pin : 493773 Pan : Aagfm4587N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Dcit-2(1), Central Revenue Building, Civil Lane, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri R.B. Doshi, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 17.03.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.03.2022

Disallowance of interest expenditure under section 14A read with Rule 8D – Rs.4,70,298/- (ii) Disallowance out of management and development

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) ..

disallowance is indicated in section 14A and is only to the extent of disallowing expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation

SHRI GOPAL PRASAD AGRAWAL,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

section 14A - High Court upheld order of Tribunal holding that amount of disallowance under section 14A could be restricted to amount

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), RAIPUR vs. MESERS VANDANA ISPAT LIMITED, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

disallowance of Rs. 19,40,967/- made by the AO u/s 14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D of the I.T.Rules?” 19. “Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in not considering the extent provisions of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), BILASPUR vs. MESERS NARMADA DRINKS PRIVATE LIMITED, BILASPUR

In the result ground No. 2 & 3 of the appeal of the revenue stands rejected

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 89/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs M/S Narmada Drinks Private Limited Circle-1(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Sirgitti Industrial Area, Tifra, Bilaspur Mahima Complex, Bilaspur (C.G.) (C.G.) Pan: Aaacn5880C (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.B. Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2023

disallowances pertaining to section 14A and 40A(3) was not considered as justified by the department, thus, to challenge the same

M/S AVINASH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.156/Rpr/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ष / / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Avinash Developers Pvt. Vs The Deputy/Assistant Ltd. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Avinash House, Maruti Circle-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) Business Park, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan No. : Aadca4060E

section 14A – High Court upheld order of Tribunal holding that amount of disallowance under section 14A could be restricted to amount

MESERS METEX ENGINEERS,BHILAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHILAI

In the result Ground No 8 of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.238/Rpr/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-2016) M/S Metex Engineers, Vs Ito, Ward-1(2), Bhilai Shop No.10-11, Ganesh Complex, Shakti Vihar, Risali Bhilai, Durg Pan No. :Aawfm 8852 G & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.247/Rpr/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Ito, Ward-1(2), Bhilai Vs M/S Metex Engineers, Shop No.10-11, Ganesh Complex, Shakti Vihar, Risali Bhilai, Durg Pan No. :Aawfm 8852 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.B.Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V.K.Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 24/04/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

disallowed by triggering the provisions of section 14A r.w.r.8D. As the reply he worked out the disallowance u/s.14A r.w.r.8D at Rs.13

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHILAI vs. MESERS METEX ENGINEERS, BHILAI

In the result Ground No 8 of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.238/Rpr/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-2016) M/S Metex Engineers, Vs Ito, Ward-1(2), Bhilai Shop No.10-11, Ganesh Complex, Shakti Vihar, Risali Bhilai, Durg Pan No. :Aawfm 8852 G & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.247/Rpr/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Ito, Ward-1(2), Bhilai Vs M/S Metex Engineers, Shop No.10-11, Ganesh Complex, Shakti Vihar, Risali Bhilai, Durg Pan No. :Aawfm 8852 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.B.Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V.K.Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 24/04/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

disallowed by triggering the provisions of section 14A r.w.r.8D. As the reply he worked out the disallowance u/s.14A r.w.r.8D at Rs.13

ABIS EXPORT INDIA PVT. LTD.,RAJNANDGAON,RAJNANDGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BHILAI, DURG

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. 194/Rpr/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19 Abis Export India Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ib, Corporate House, Indamara, Tax, Circle-1(1), Bhilai Rajnandgaon (C.G.)-491 441 Pan: Aacca2881J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Bikram Jain, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 22/08/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/10/2023 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. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) Dated 28.03.2023 For A.Y.2018-19. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. On The Fact & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax—Raipur-1 Has Erred In Holding The Assessment Order Passed By The National E-Assessment Centre (Neac) On 01.03.2021 As Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue As The Order Was Passed Without Making Any Enquiry On The Issues Of Applicability Of Section 14A Of The I. T. Act, 1961. The Assessment Order Passed By The Neac Is Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & Therefore The Order U/S 263 Passed By The Ld. Cit Is Unjustified, Unwarranted & Uncalled. 2. The Assessee Reserves The Right To Add, Amend Or Alter Any Grounds Of Appeal At Any Time Of Hearing.”

disallowances u/s 14A of the Act was worked out at Rs. 16,94,37,000/-". In view of this order passed by the A.O. is erroneous and prejudicial to the Interest of the revenue and therefore, needs to be revised under the provisions of section

M/S GOEL ZENITH AGRO (P) LTD,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(2), RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

section 14A are not applicable. The submissions of assessee were not found acceptable to Assessing Officer. Assessing Officer thereafter worked out the disallowance

M/S SHREE NAKODA INDUSTRIES LTD,RAIPUR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(2), RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

section 14A are not applicable. The submissions of assessee were not found acceptable to Assessing Officer. Assessing Officer thereafter worked out the disallowance

DY. C.I.T.1(2), RAIPUR (CG) vs. M/S GODAWARI POWER & ISPAT LTD.,, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit- 1(2), Godawari Power & Ispat Ltd., Raipur (Cg). Plot No.482/2, Industrial Growth Vs. Centre, Phase- 1, Siltara, Raipur (Cg).

14A for assessment year 2010-11. We find the ld. CIT(A) deleted such disallowance on the ground that the assessee had sufficient own funds for making investment and, therefore, no disallowance is called for. We find in the immediately preceding assessment year the issue relating to section

M/S BEC INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,DURG vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHILAI

In the result ground no. 3 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.66/Rpr/2020 (Assessment Year: 2014-2015) M/S Bec Infra Private Limited, Vs Circle-3(1), Raipur 47, Motilal Nehru Nagar, Durg Pan No. :Aagcm 0049 N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Nilesh Jain, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/04/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-Ii, Raipur, Dated 31.12.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2. At The Outset, Ld. Sr. Dr Submitted That The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 59 Days, Which Can Be Further Extended Since The Claim Of The Assessee That The Order Was Served After 38 Days Of Delay Was Not Supported By Any Documentary Evidence. As Per Appeal Memo In Form No.36, The Date Of Service Of Communication Of The Order Was 7Th February, 2020 & The Appeal Was Filed On 08.06.2020. On This Aspect, The Ld. Ar Submitted That This Was The Covid-19 Period & The Hon’Ble Apex Court Has Already Directed To Extend The Limitation For That Period, Therefore, The Delay May Be Condoned. The Submission Of The Ld. Ar Found Satisfactory & Acceptable & Accordingly, The Delay In Filing The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned.

disallowance under section 14A, further disallowance made by Assessing Officer by applying rule 8D without recording his dissatisfaction on disallowance

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 u/s 14A-Rs.55,06,957/-. 8.1. The AO applied Section 14A read with Rule 8D and disallowed Rs.55

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-1), RAIPUR vs. M/S. REAL ISPAT & POWER LTD., RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 101/Rpr/2021 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs M/S Real Ispat & Power Ltd. (Central Circle-01), Raipur Vrindavan, Opp. Holy Hearts Schools, Raipur (C.G) Pan No. : Aabcr 9986 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. : Shri G. S. Agarwal, Ca "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : None सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 12/06/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Present Appeal Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-3, Bhopal Dated 01.09.2021 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. In This Appeal Of Revenue Following Grounds Were Raised. “1. Whether On The Facts & In Law Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 2,57,13,664/- Made By The Ao U/S 14A R.W.S 8D? 2. Any Other Ground May Be Pressed At The Time Of Hearing.”

disallowance was not warranted under section 14A on ground that separate accounts were not maintained by assessee for investments and other

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

Disallowance as per 87,41,411/- Section 14A r.w.r.8D 89,41,411/- Last year’s addition 2,00,000/- Total

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. SHRI BAJRANG POWER AND ISPAT LTD., RAIPUR

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 201/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Bajrang Power & Ispat Limited, 00, Vill. Borjhara, Urla Guma Road, Raipur-493221. Pan : Aaccb2944D ……""यथ" / Respondent

section 14A(2) of the Act and mechanically proceeded to compute disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules

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

14A of the Act a/w the mechanism for working out the disallowance as contemplated in Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act, Rules 1963, and the law pertaining to the said statutory provision as had developed over the time, therein, without recording his satisfaction as to why the assessee‘s claim that no expenditure could be attributed for earning