SANTOSH JAIN, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 144, 146 & 148/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1993-94, 1994-95 & 1995-96 Santosh Jain Opp. P.N Tiwari, Gandhi Chowk, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan: Afypj6194D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

disallowance made in assessment and the outcome in quantum appeal did not have any bearing upon penalty u/s 277(1)(b). Therefore, sub-clause (a) of section 275(1) is not applicable. Consequently, the penalty outer dated 27.07.2015 passed by AO is time barred. 3.7 in view of above explanation, it is requested that the penalty order may kindly

SANTOSH JAIN, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 144, 146 & 148/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1993-94, 1994-95 & 1995-96 Santosh Jain Opp. P.N Tiwari, Gandhi Chowk, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan: Afypj6194D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

disallowance made in assessment and the outcome in quantum appeal did not have any bearing upon penalty u/s 277(1)(b). Therefore, sub-clause (a) of section 275(1) is not applicable. Consequently, the penalty outer dated 27.07.2015 passed by AO is time barred. 3.7 in view of above explanation, it is requested that the penalty order may kindly

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

246A and thereby dismissing the appeal without adjudicating any of the grounds of appeal raised before him. 3. Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal and in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. penalty levied under section 270A is void-ab-initio as no penalty under section 270A was initiated during the course of assessment

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

KIRAN AGRAWAL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of over aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 655/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2022-23)

disallowance/ addition is highly unjustified, unwarranted, uncorroborated, untenable, not proper on facts of the case, based on conjectures & surmises and not in accordance with the provisions of law and it is requested that the same may please be deleted. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred

GURMEET SINGH HORA,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 358, 359 & 360/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22)

disallowance on account of payment towards contribution of provident fund and ESIC beyond due dates stipulated under the respective Acts but paid before the due date of filing of return under Income Tax Act. 6. Aggrieved with the aforesaid additions, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed in-limine

GURMEET SINGH HORA,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 358, 359 & 360/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22)

disallowance on account of payment towards contribution of provident fund and ESIC beyond due dates stipulated under the respective Acts but paid before the due date of filing of return under Income Tax Act. 6. Aggrieved with the aforesaid additions, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed in-limine

GURMEET SINGH HORA,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 358, 359 & 360/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22)

disallowance on account of payment towards contribution of provident fund and ESIC beyond due dates stipulated under the respective Acts but paid before the due date of filing of return under Income Tax Act. 6. Aggrieved with the aforesaid additions, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed in-limine

SPIN PACKAGING LTD., BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of over aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 165/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18)

disallowance were made by the Ld. AO. 3 Spin Packaging Ltd. Vs. DCIT/ACIT-2(1), Bilaspur Consequently, the assessed income of the assessee has been enhanced and determined at Rs. 2,11,63,266/-, with certain addition amounting to Rs. 54,52,856/-. 4. Aggrieved with the aforesaid additions, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), however, on account

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , RAIPUR vs. GRAND MOTORS, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Grand Motors, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Lodhi Para Chowk, Pandri, Raipur Raipur, 492001, Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh, 492001 Pan: Aagfg8524P

section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the decision of Ld. Addl/JCIT (A)-1, Surat was justified in deleting the addition made by the OCIT CPC to the tune of Rs.3,05,92,653/- by holding that unpaid VAT could have been disallowed

RAJESH KUMAR DAMODARAN,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), BHILAI

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaiआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 117/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Rajesh Kumar Damodaran Prop. M/S. Global System 22, Daya Nagar, Risali, Durg. (C.G.) Pan : Acwpd0132A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.5,19,030/- made u/ s.40a(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without applying the legal position settled on this issue. 3. In the facts

RANCHI FUELS, BALODA BAZAR, BHATAPARA,BALODA BAZAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHATAPARA, BHATAPARA

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.532/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ranchi Fuels Limtara, Nandghat, Baloda Bazar-492 006 (C.G.) Pan: Aatfr0836L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Bhatapara (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

Sections 11 & 12 of the IT Act, and that too in absence of counter-affidavit filed by the Revenue opposing the application for condonation of delay supported by affidavit. The ITAT ought to have condoned the delay in preferring the appeal as there is no allegation that delay in filing the appeal is mala fide or it is deliberate, rather

THE INDIAN MISSIONARY MOVEMENT,KAWARDHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- KAWARDHA, KAWARDHA

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 199/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year:2017-18)

Section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Income Tax Act in computing the total income of previous year of any person on behalf of any university or other educational institutions existing solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit if the aggregate annual receipt of such university or educational institution do not exceed the amount of Rs. 1 crore

ADIM JATI SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT, DHORRA,GARIYABAND vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 25/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Adim Jati Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Dhorra Ground Floor, Main Road Dhorra, Gariyaband(C.G)-493889 Pan: Aabaa7991C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle 1(1) Revenue Building, Civil Lines Raipur (C.G.)-492001 ……""यथ" / Respondent

section which kindly be allowed. 3 5. That under the facts and the law the Ld.CIT (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi further erred in confirming the rejection of claim of the appellant for deduction of commission income earned at Rs. 2,73,661 u/s. 80P(2). Prayed that the above income is deductible u/s. 80P(2). 6.That Under the facts

BAJRANG LAL AGRAWAL,SURAJPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, AMBIKAPUR, AMBIKAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 260/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Bajrang Lal Agrawal Aman Cold Storage, Bhaiyathan Road, Surajpur C.G-497 229 Pan : Adypa3583F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambikapur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

section 68, treating it to be unexplained income of appellant. The addition/disallowance made by the A.O and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is arbitrary, baseless and not justified. 2. The appellant reserves the right to add, amend or modify any of the ground/s of appeal.” 2. At the very outset I find that the present appeal is time barred

GURMUKH DAS GANGWANI, BHATAPARA,BHATAPARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 246/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Gurmukh Das Gangwani House No.199, Gurunanak Ward, Bhatapara (C.G.)-493 118 Pan : Ainpg1689A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

disallowance of 25 percent of the amount of purchases made from certain parties u/s 145(3) even there was no suppression of profits. 3. That the assessee craves leave to add, urge, alter, modify and with draw any ground/grounds before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee who is engaged in the business