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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without specifying whether it is for “concealment of Income” or for “furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income” in the show cause notice given and therefore, the impugned penalty order dated 30 January 2015 passed by him is bad in law, thus, deserves to be quashed.” On the other hand the revenue

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without specifying whether it is for “concealment of Income” or for “furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income” in the show cause notice given and therefore, the impugned penalty order dated 30 January 2015 passed by him is bad in law, thus, deserves to be quashed.” On the other hand the revenue

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without specifying whether it is for “concealment of Income” or for “furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income” in the show cause notice given and therefore, the impugned penalty order dated 30 January 2015 passed by him is bad in law, thus, deserves to be quashed.” On the other hand the revenue

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without specifying whether it is for “concealment of Income” or for “furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income” in the show cause notice given and therefore, the impugned penalty order dated 30 January 2015 passed by him is bad in law, thus, deserves to be quashed.” On the other hand the revenue

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED,BILASPUR vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without specifying whether it is for “concealment of Income” or for “furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income” in the show cause notice given and therefore, the impugned penalty order dated 30 January 2015 passed by him is bad in law, thus, deserves to be quashed.” On the other hand the revenue

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without specifying whether it is for “concealment of Income” or for “furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income” in the show cause notice given and therefore, the impugned penalty order dated 30 January 2015 passed by him is bad in law, thus, deserves to be quashed.” On the other hand the revenue

THE SOUTH EASTERN COAL FIELDS LTD., BILASPUR,BILASPUR(CG) vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE , 1(1)BILASPUR, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without specifying whether it is for “concealment of Income” or for “furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income” in the show cause notice given and therefore, the impugned penalty order dated 30 January 2015 passed by him is bad in law, thus, deserves to be quashed.” On the other hand the revenue

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 1(1)BILASPUR, BILASPUR(CG) vs. THE SOUTH EASTERN COAL FIELDS LTD., BILASPUR, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without specifying whether it is for “concealment of Income” or for “furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income” in the show cause notice given and therefore, the impugned penalty order dated 30 January 2015 passed by him is bad in law, thus, deserves to be quashed.” On the other hand the revenue

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD,BILASPUR(CG) vs. DY.. C.I.T.-1(1), BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without specifying whether it is for “concealment of Income” or for “furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income” in the show cause notice given and therefore, the impugned penalty order dated 30 January 2015 passed by him is bad in law, thus, deserves to be quashed.” On the other hand the revenue

THE DY. CIT- CIR.-1(1),, BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFILDS LTD.,, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without specifying whether it is for “concealment of Income” or for “furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income” in the show cause notice given and therefore, the impugned penalty order dated 30 January 2015 passed by him is bad in law, thus, deserves to be quashed.” On the other hand the revenue

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COAL FIELDS LTD.,, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without specifying whether it is for “concealment of Income” or for “furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income” in the show cause notice given and therefore, the impugned penalty order dated 30 January 2015 passed by him is bad in law, thus, deserves to be quashed.” On the other hand the revenue

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

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury,Jm Sl.

254 ITR 561 (SC). The Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee company has failed to prove that the expenditure claimed is equivalent to facility allowed. Hence, by treating it as far beyond business purposes, the Assessing Officer disallowed the entire expenditure of Rs.2336.88 lacs. 70. During the First Appellate Proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) following the order passed

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-RANGE-1,, BILASPUR vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED,, BILASPUR

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury,Jm Sl.

254 ITR 561 (SC). The Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee company has failed to prove that the expenditure claimed is equivalent to facility allowed. Hence, by treating it as far beyond business purposes, the Assessing Officer disallowed the entire expenditure of Rs.2336.88 lacs. 70. During the First Appellate Proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) following the order passed

SHRI SHRI NISHANT JAIN,BILASPUR(CG) vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,RANGE-I, BILASPUR(CG)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.199/Rpr/2016 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Nishant Jain, Vs Jcit, Range-1, Bilaspur(Cg) M/S Landmark Engineer, Flat No.27, Shantinagar, Ring Road No.2, Bilaspur Pan No. : Agepj 9793 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

Disallowance of Security Deposit of Rs. 3,42,774/- 15. Learned AR, has submitted that an addition of Rs. 21,45,000 towards alleged unexplained Loans/Deposits Under Section 68 were made by the AO. Details of all the required Ingredients to establish that 10 the Loan/Deposit transactions were genuine submitted to the Ld CIT(A). Submissions of the assessee were

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

disallowance for Rs.4,64,730/- made by him u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act, for the delayed deposit of the employees share of contribution of ESIC. 6. Subsequently, the respondent i.e. department had filed an Miscellaneous Application (MA) u/s 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 19.01.2024, raising the contention that “Weather or not the A.O. /CPC, Bangaluru

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. M/S SUNIL SPONGE PVT. LTD., RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.73/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Central Circle)-1, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Sunil Sponge Pvt. Ltd. H. No.11, Jalvihar Colony, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aahcs7999A ……""यथ" / Respondent

1,64,20,225/- on 31.03.2007. The AO has not brought any material on record to discredit the evidences filed submission made during assessment proceedings. Genuineness of this entry has not been doubted in the assessment proceedings by bringing any cogent material on record. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has suppressed its sales by way of giving

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), , RAIPUR vs. SHRI RADHESHYAM AGRAWAL, RAIPUR

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.32/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. Radheshyam Agrawal 27/B, Ankit Choubey Colony, Raipur (C.G.). Pan : Aczpa6544J ……""यथ" / Respondent

disallowance of cost of improvement amounting to Rs.18,77,602/- out of total amount claimed at Rs. 31,62,386/- ignoring the fact that the assessee failed to produce satisfactory evidence in support of his claim? 5. Any other ground as may be raised during the course of appeal.” 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee had e-filed his return

HITESH GOLCHHA,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, in terms of our observations herein above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.101, 102, 103 & 104/Rpr/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) V. Hitesh Golchha Acit, Prop. Of Mouli Investment, Central Circle-1 Jeevan Ganga, Near Dani Bada, Raipur Budha Para, Raipur – 492 001 Chhattisgarh [Pan: Agjpg 7698 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B. Subramanyam, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri S. K. Meena, Cit-D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.11.2023

disallowance. 2.12. Therefore, if the Commissioner of Income Tax holds that there is any error in the order of the Assessing Officer, he should give a categorical finding in this regard and for this purpose, he himself has to make enquiries and investigations, whatever he deems fit in the circumstances. 2.13. The assessee had filed various replies