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:

disallowance of Rs.53,32,200/-, considered as bogus transaction. The facts of the case have already been discussed in the initial part of the order. I find that the appellant has not filed any documentary evidence before the AO regarding the transactions allegedly held with M/s Abhishek Enterprises. As already discussed, the appellant remained non-compliant during the course

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, CIRCLE-3(1), RAIPUR vs. SHRI RAKESH SINGH, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.231/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Acit-3(1), Raipur Vs Shri Rakesh Singh, A-4, Mahaveer Singh, Tagore Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan No. : Acwps 6453 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. Dr ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

disallowance of Rs. 2.20 Crore for deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 54 IT Act made by the AO was correct, because the assessee had not submitted copy of capital gain account, instead the assessee had submitted copy of his saving bank account. Ld CIT(A) on this issue has observed that the AO appears to be not aware that

RAJESH CHIMNANI L/H LATE SHRI SUDHAM CHAND CHIMNANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.79/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Rajesh Chimnani, L/H. Late Shri Sudham Chand Chimnani, B-17/7, Near Pani Tanki, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Acfpc0343R

disallowance made by the AO is illegal, arbitrary, baseless and not justified. 2. The notice issued u/s.148 and consequent reassessment order passed by AO is illegal inasmuch as the sanction u/s.151 from specified authority is not as per law and without jurisdiction. 3. The reassessment order passed by AO is illegal, bad in law and is liable to be quashed

MOHAN SUKUMARAN,,RAIGARH(CG) vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), BILASPUR(CG)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

251(1) of the Act. Consequently, such directions to the AO for exploring additions in the earlier years towards disallowances out of service tax claims and interest thereon are bad in law at the threshold and thus unsustainable. This is more so on account of fact that Section

MOHAN SUKUMARAN,,RAIGARH(CG) vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), BILASPUR(CG)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

251(1) of the Act. Consequently, such directions to the AO for exploring additions in the earlier years towards disallowances out of service tax claims and interest thereon are bad in law at the threshold and thus unsustainable. This is more so on account of fact that Section

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

section 14A, as it was added back in the income of the assessee in preceding Assessment Year i.e. 2010-11.” 52. At the very outset of the hearing of the appeal the Ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘AR’) for the assessee submitted that he was not pressing the ground of appeal No.1. In view of the concession

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

section 14A, as it was added back in the income of the assessee in preceding Assessment Year i.e. 2010-11.” 52. At the very outset of the hearing of the appeal the Ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘AR’) for the assessee submitted that he was not pressing the ground of appeal No.1. In view of the concession

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