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)

250 of the Act may please be cancelled/set-aside on this ground alone. 2. That the assessment order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi ("the Ld. AO") under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act is highly illegal, bad in law, suffers from legal infirmities, vitiated, unsustainable and hence liable to be quashed

UMESH KUMAR PANDEY, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), BHILAI, BHILAI

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: 42/Rpr/2026 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2021-22)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). 2. Vide eight grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged not only the legality of the impugned order but also the additions on merit of the case. The main 1 Umesh Kumar Pandey vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Bhilai grievance of the assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A) has not provided

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)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), dated 23.01.2025, for the Assessment Year 2017-18, which in turn arises from the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 19.12.2019 passed by Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, DC/ACIT-2(1), Bilaspur, (in short “Ld. AR”). 2 Spin Packaging Ltd. Vs. DCIT/ACIT-2(1), Bilaspur

MADHYANI BUILDERS, BHILAI,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE-1(1), BHILAI, DURG

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: 189/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2022-23)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), which in turn arises from the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, dated 30.12.2023, issued by Centralized Processing Center, Bengaluru (in short “Ld. AO”). 2 Madhyani Builders Vs Income Tax Officer, Circle-1(1), Bhilai 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under

SHREE KRISHNA UDYOG, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 841/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shree Krishna Udyog, 17A, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Bhanpuri Industrial Area, Aaykar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492010 Raipur Chhattisgarh, 492001 Pan: Aapfs5659E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G. S. Agrawal, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 16/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). 2. The appellant assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: - “1. That under the facts and the law, the Order of below authorities are bad in law and on facts. 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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). 2. The following grounds of appeal have been taken by the revenue: - “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made by the AO to the tune

AARTI SPONGE AND POWER LTD.,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, -1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.70/Rpr/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. Aarti Sponge & Power Ltd. Acit -1 (1) Aarti House, Ashoka Ratna Shankar Raipur Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh – 492 001

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 20.02.2023 for the Assessment Year 2013-14, passed vide the appeal instituted against the order under :: 2 :: section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 issued by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax – 2(1), Raipur dated 04.11.2015. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. Learnd

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)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), all dated 17.03.2025, for the Assessment Year 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22, which in turn arises from the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act, dated 14.07.2020, 24.12.2021 and 21.11.2022, respectively. Gurmeet Singh Hora vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1) 2. Since

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)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), all dated 17.03.2025, for the Assessment Year 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22, which in turn arises from the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act, dated 14.07.2020, 24.12.2021 and 21.11.2022, respectively. Gurmeet Singh Hora vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1) 2. Since

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)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), all dated 17.03.2025, for the Assessment Year 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22, which in turn arises from the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act, dated 14.07.2020, 24.12.2021 and 21.11.2022, respectively. Gurmeet Singh Hora vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1) 2. Since

SHARAD GOEL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 310/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2013-14)

250(4) and (6) of the Act which are not adhered to by him, we find it appropriate to restore this matter back to the file of Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 9. Adverting to the second issue regarding ad-hoc disallowance of 5% from Discount, Repair & Maintenance, Workshop Expenses amount to Rs.2,69,315/- and herein also

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR vs. SHANTA TECHNO PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 155/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), dated 06.01.2025, for the Assessment Year 2018-19, which in turn arises from the order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 20.03.2023, passed by Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (in short, “Ld. AR”). 2 DCIT-1(1) vs. Shanta Techno Private Limited 2. The grounds

8TH BATALIAN INDIA RESERVE CAF,RAJNANDGAON vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

disallowed under the proviso to section 143(1)(a). If any further enquiry is necessary, or if the Income-tax Officer feels that further proof is required in connection with the claim for deduction, he will have to issue a notice under sub-section (2) of section 143." 5.1.7 The order was passed u/s. 200A on 06.09.2014, which was appealable

8TH BATALIAN INDIA RESERVE CAF,RAJNANDGAON vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

disallowed under the proviso to section 143(1)(a). If any further enquiry is necessary, or if the Income-tax Officer feels that further proof is required in connection with the claim for deduction, he will have to issue a notice under sub-section (2) of section 143." 5.1.7 The order was passed u/s. 200A on 06.09.2014, which was appealable

8TH BATALIAN INDIA RESERVE CAF,RAJNANDGAON vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

disallowed under the proviso to section 143(1)(a). If any further enquiry is necessary, or if the Income-tax Officer feels that further proof is required in connection with the claim for deduction, he will have to issue a notice under sub-section (2) of section 143." 5.1.7 The order was passed u/s. 200A on 06.09.2014, which was appealable

8TH BATALIAN INDIA RESERVE CAF,RAJNANDGAON vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

disallowed under the proviso to section 143(1)(a). If any further enquiry is necessary, or if the Income-tax Officer feels that further proof is required in connection with the claim for deduction, he will have to issue a notice under sub-section (2) of section 143." 5.1.7 The order was passed u/s. 200A on 06.09.2014, which was appealable

8TH BATALIAN INDIA RESERVE CAF,RAJNANDGAON vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

disallowed under the proviso to section 143(1)(a). If any further enquiry is necessary, or if the Income-tax Officer feels that further proof is required in connection with the claim for deduction, he will have to issue a notice under sub-section (2) of section 143." 5.1.7 The order was passed u/s. 200A on 06.09.2014, which was appealable

8TH BATALIAN INDIA RESERVE CAF,RAJNANDGAON vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

disallowed under the proviso to section 143(1)(a). If any further enquiry is necessary, or if the Income-tax Officer feels that further proof is required in connection with the claim for deduction, he will have to issue a notice under sub-section (2) of section 143." 5.1.7 The order was passed u/s. 200A on 06.09.2014, which was appealable

8TH BATALIAN INDIA RESERVE CAF,RAJNANDGAON vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

disallowed under the proviso to section 143(1)(a). If any further enquiry is necessary, or if the Income-tax Officer feels that further proof is required in connection with the claim for deduction, he will have to issue a notice under sub-section (2) of section 143." 5.1.7 The order was passed u/s. 200A on 06.09.2014, which was appealable