ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

disallowances made by the A.O and placed his contentions as regards the same. Our attention was drawn by the Ld. AR towards a consolidated “Chart” that was compiled as regards the respective grounds of appeal. 9. Per contra, it was submitted by the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) that pursuant to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

disallowances made by the A.O and placed his contentions as regards the same. Our attention was drawn by the Ld. AR towards a consolidated “Chart” that was compiled as regards the respective grounds of appeal. 9. Per contra, it was submitted by the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) that pursuant to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court

ADDL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE -1, BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

disallowances made by the A.O and placed his contentions as regards the same. Our attention was drawn by the Ld. AR towards a consolidated “Chart” that was compiled as regards the respective grounds of appeal. 9. Per contra, it was submitted by the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) that pursuant to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), BILASPUR vs. MESERS SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED, BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

disallowances made by the A.O and placed his contentions as regards the same. Our attention was drawn by the Ld. AR towards a consolidated “Chart” that was compiled as regards the respective grounds of appeal. 9. Per contra, it was submitted by the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) that pursuant to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court

ADDL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE -1, BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

disallowances made by the A.O and placed his contentions as regards the same. Our attention was drawn by the Ld. AR towards a consolidated “Chart” that was compiled as regards the respective grounds of appeal. 9. Per contra, it was submitted by the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) that pursuant to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

disallowances made by the A.O and placed his contentions as regards the same. Our attention was drawn by the Ld. AR towards a consolidated “Chart” that was compiled as regards the respective grounds of appeal. 9. Per contra, it was submitted by the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) that pursuant to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

disallowances made by the A.O and placed his contentions as regards the same. Our attention was drawn by the Ld. AR towards a consolidated “Chart” that was compiled as regards the respective grounds of appeal. 9. Per contra, it was submitted by the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) that pursuant to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

disallowances made by the A.O and placed his contentions as regards the same. Our attention was drawn by the Ld. AR towards a consolidated “Chart” that was compiled as regards the respective grounds of appeal. 9. Per contra, it was submitted by the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) that pursuant to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court

MICKEY SHRIVASTVA,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3(1), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Disallowances under section 40a(ia) of Rs. 38,00,000/- in view of section 194C(5) of the Act on account of material handling expenses.(Para-03 Page-02) ii. Dis allowances under section 40a(ia) of Rs,5,99,866/- was made in view of 194C of the act and on account of payment to various transporters. ( Para

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHILAI vs. SHRI SANDEEP SURENDRAN NAIR, BHILAI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by Revenue in the present appeal found to be squarely covered in favour of the assessee and thus the same are rejected

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.100/Rpr/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. The Dcit-1(1) Shri Sandeep Surendran Bhilai Nair, Prop. M/S. Vasava Engineering Construction, 113-Friends Arcade, Shastri Nagar, Supela, Bhilai [Pan: Aczpn 2865 M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By Shri Makarand M. Joshi & Shri Aniruddha Kavimandan, Cas ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, : Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 22.08.2023 : घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.09.2023

disallowance made under Section 43B of the Act was justified and :: 4 :: should be sustained. Learned Sr. D.R. further draw our attention to the written submissions made by the Sr. D.R. of the Department dated 30.03.2023, the same is extracted as under: “Before, The Hon'ble Member(s), ITAT Bench, Raipur (C.G.). Sub: Appeal filed under section 253

M/S MATA ROAD CARRIERS,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowed l/4th of expenses claimed under this head i.e. Rs. 2,21,050/- and added to the total income of the assessee. 7. Against the above order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and filed its written submission substantiating its claim, however, the ld CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee upholding

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

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

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 of Rs.55,06,957 made by the A.O under section 14A”. As the assessee based on the aforesaid additional ground of appeal has raised an issue, the adjudication of which would not require looking any further beyond the facts available on record, therefore, we have no hesitation in admitting the same. Our aforesaid view that where an assessee

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

253(5) of the IT Act. The rejection of application for condonation of delay has serious civil consequences upon the status of the Society, as by rejection of the application of the appellant Society, the Society would not be able to claim tax exemption under the provisions contained in Sections 11 & 12 of the IT Act, and that

KAMLESH SHARMA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 70/Rpr/2026 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2020-21) Kamlesh Sharma, House No.109, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Harihant Nagar, Sarona, Tax, Circle-1(1), Central Revenue Ring Road No.1, Raipur-492001, Cg Building, Civil Lines, Raipur-492001 Pan: Bppps4514C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None (Adjournment Petition Filed) राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 06/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2020-21 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.12.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [‘Cit(A)’], National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’), Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

disallowance of Rs.9,19,253/-u/s Rs.9,19,253/- 10 5. Variation in respect of addition of Rs.1,10,00,000/- u/s 69 Rs.1,10,00,000/- 6. Variation in respect of addition of Rs. 30,497/- on account Rs 30,407/- of STCG 7. Total income/Loss determined Rs.1,62.46,830/- 4. Aggrieved with the reassessment order, the assessee filed

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 69C of the Act, treating the alleged disputed purchase as bogus transactions recorded in the books of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved with the aforesaid disallowance by the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), wherein the plea of the assessee, placing reliance on various decisions, was deliberated upon, and the appeal of the assessee