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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

5. Subsequently in the case of ECIL vs. UOI [231 CTR 353 (SC)], the Hon'ble Supreme inter-alia, stated that provisions relating to COD outlived their utility. 6. Thereafter, the Id. AO filed a Miscellaneous Application before the Hon'ble Tribunal on restoration of the dismissed appeal [vide MA order dated 21 October 2011]. 7. Subsequently

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

5. Subsequently in the case of ECIL vs. UOI [231 CTR 353 (SC)], the Hon'ble Supreme inter-alia, stated that provisions relating to COD outlived their utility. 6. Thereafter, the Id. AO filed a Miscellaneous Application before the Hon'ble Tribunal on restoration of the dismissed appeal [vide MA order dated 21 October 2011]. 7. Subsequently

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

5. Subsequently in the case of ECIL vs. UOI [231 CTR 353 (SC)], the Hon'ble Supreme inter-alia, stated that provisions relating to COD outlived their utility. 6. Thereafter, the Id. AO filed a Miscellaneous Application before the Hon'ble Tribunal on restoration of the dismissed appeal [vide MA order dated 21 October 2011]. 7. Subsequently

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

5. Subsequently in the case of ECIL vs. UOI [231 CTR 353 (SC)], the Hon'ble Supreme inter-alia, stated that provisions relating to COD outlived their utility. 6. Thereafter, the Id. AO filed a Miscellaneous Application before the Hon'ble Tribunal on restoration of the dismissed appeal [vide MA order dated 21 October 2011]. 7. Subsequently

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

5. Subsequently in the case of ECIL vs. UOI [231 CTR 353 (SC)], the Hon'ble Supreme inter-alia, stated that provisions relating to COD outlived their utility. 6. Thereafter, the Id. AO filed a Miscellaneous Application before the Hon'ble Tribunal on restoration of the dismissed appeal [vide MA order dated 21 October 2011]. 7. Subsequently

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

5. Subsequently in the case of ECIL vs. UOI [231 CTR 353 (SC)], the Hon'ble Supreme inter-alia, stated that provisions relating to COD outlived their utility. 6. Thereafter, the Id. AO filed a Miscellaneous Application before the Hon'ble Tribunal on restoration of the dismissed appeal [vide MA order dated 21 October 2011]. 7. Subsequently

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

5. Subsequently in the case of ECIL vs. UOI [231 CTR 353 (SC)], the Hon'ble Supreme inter-alia, stated that provisions relating to COD outlived their utility. 6. Thereafter, the Id. AO filed a Miscellaneous Application before the Hon'ble Tribunal on restoration of the dismissed appeal [vide MA order dated 21 October 2011]. 7. Subsequently

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

5. Subsequently in the case of ECIL vs. UOI [231 CTR 353 (SC)], the Hon'ble Supreme inter-alia, stated that provisions relating to COD outlived their utility. 6. Thereafter, the Id. AO filed a Miscellaneous Application before the Hon'ble Tribunal on restoration of the dismissed appeal [vide MA order dated 21 October 2011]. 7. Subsequently

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

5. Subsequently in the case of ECIL vs. UOI [231 CTR 353 (SC)], the Hon'ble Supreme inter-alia, stated that provisions relating to COD outlived their utility. 6. Thereafter, the Id. AO filed a Miscellaneous Application before the Hon'ble Tribunal on restoration of the dismissed appeal [vide MA order dated 21 October 2011]. 7. Subsequently

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

M/S VARSHA CONSTRUCTION,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 5/Rpr/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Varsha Construction, V The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Second Floor-25, 26, Millenium Plaza, S Tax, Circle-1(1), Central Revenue Raipur-492 001, Chhattisgarh Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, C.G.. Pan: Aaefv 8399 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) . (""थ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Mr. Sakshi Gopal Aggarwal, Ca राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Tarannum Verma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2025 : 22.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement

5” to Section 43B and “Explanation 2” to Section 36(1)(va) are applicable w.e.f 01.04.2021, i.e, from A.Y 2021-22 onwards, therefore, the same would not have any bearing on the case of the assessee before us, i.e, for A.Y 2011-12. Accordingly, drawing support from the aforementioned judicial pronouncements, we, herein conclude, that as the employees contributions

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

253 by the Revenue in the case of Sandeep Surendra Nair for the A.Y. 2013-14, request regarding: 1. Procedural facts on records Reference No. ITA 100/RPR/2018 Appellant The assessee Adverse CIT appeal order Return filed on 29.09.2013 1,04,32,090/- A.Y. 2015-16 Status and nature of Contractor mechanical work trade Order under Section 143(3) Income assessed

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

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

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

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)

253(5) of the Income Tax Act. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an educational institution, which has failed in furnishing the income tax return for the assessment year 2017-18. On the basis of data analytics and information gathered during the phase of online verification under “Operation Clean Money”, the Income Tax Department

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