SHARDA STEEL TRADERS, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 111, 112, 113, 114, 115 & 116/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11,2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 )

153B(2)(b) of the Act. 16. That such an approval of a superior officer cannot be a mechanical exercise has been emphasized in several decisions. Illustratively, in the context of Section 142(2-A) which empowers an AO to direct a special audit. The obtaining of the prior approval was held to be mandatory. The Supreme Court in Rajesh

SHARDA STEEL TRADERS, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 111, 112, 113, 114, 115 & 116/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11,2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 )

153B(2)(b) of the Act. 16. That such an approval of a superior officer cannot be a mechanical exercise has been emphasized in several decisions. Illustratively, in the context of Section 142(2-A) which empowers an AO to direct a special audit. The obtaining of the prior approval was held to be mandatory. The Supreme Court in Rajesh

SHARDA STEEL TRADERS, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 111, 112, 113, 114, 115 & 116/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11,2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 )

153B(2)(b) of the Act. 16. That such an approval of a superior officer cannot be a mechanical exercise has been emphasized in several decisions. Illustratively, in the context of Section 142(2-A) which empowers an AO to direct a special audit. The obtaining of the prior approval was held to be mandatory. The Supreme Court in Rajesh

SHARDA STEEL TRADERS, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 111, 112, 113, 114, 115 & 116/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11,2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 )

153B(2)(b) of the Act. 16. That such an approval of a superior officer cannot be a mechanical exercise has been emphasized in several decisions. Illustratively, in the context of Section 142(2-A) which empowers an AO to direct a special audit. The obtaining of the prior approval was held to be mandatory. The Supreme Court in Rajesh

SARTHAK ISPAT PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 431/Rpr/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2012-13) Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd., V Income Tax Officer-2(1), Raipur S Udaya Society, Vivekanand Ashram, Raipur, 492001, C.G. Pan: Aalcs5029H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) . (""थ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Subhash Agrawal, Adv. राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S. L. Anuragi, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2025

disallowance is arbitrary, illegal, baseless and not justified. 4. The notice issued by AO u/s 148 is illegal, ab initio void. There was no material before the AO for formation of belief of escapement. The AO reopened the assessment without application of mind and reassessment was initiated only on the basis of Report of DDIT (Inv.), Kolkata. The reassessment proceeding

INCOME TAX OFFICER, RAIPUR vs. RAHUL KATHURIA, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.151 & 152/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 The Income Tax Officer/Income Tax Officer-3(1) Raipur (C.G.)

disallowed. 5.5.5. The appellant has also asserted that "In spite of submitting all evidences, the Ld. AO has observed that the assessee provided the combined profit and loss statement of share trading in the books of Exclusive Securities ltd. But the source of investment towards purchase of shares has not been provided. In response to same, the appellant begs

INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. RAHUL KATHURIA, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.151 & 152/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 The Income Tax Officer/Income Tax Officer-3(1) Raipur (C.G.)

disallowed. 5.5.5. The appellant has also asserted that "In spite of submitting all evidences, the Ld. AO has observed that the assessee provided the combined profit and loss statement of share trading in the books of Exclusive Securities ltd. But the source of investment towards purchase of shares has not been provided. In response to same, the appellant begs

THE DY. CIT- 2(1),, RAIPUR (CG) vs. SHRI GOVERDHAN DAS KHANDELWAL,, 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: 2011-12 The Dy. Commissioner Of Sh. Goverdhan Das Khandelwal Income-Tax-2(1), 27/215, Ward-15, Central Revenue Building, Jawahar Nagar, Civil Lines, Vs. Raipur (C.G.) Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aewpk6798K (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri P.K. Mishra (Dr) Assessee By : Shri Abhishek Jain (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 07/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2018

section 153B (1)(b)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). 2. Brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was carried out at the business cum residential of the assessee. In response to the notice u/s 153A of the Act, assessee filed its return of income