M/S. EXOTICS FATS EXIM,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4), RAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of the aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.130/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Exotics Fats Exim 3Rd Floor, C/O. Dayalal Meghji & Co., Dm Plaza, Chhotapara, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aacfe1065H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(4), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

disallowance of Rs.1,40,260/- is baseless estimation merely on presumption, surmises and without having any corroborative material/evidence brought on record by the ld. AO, more so, when the ld. AO has not rejected the books of account by applying section

M/S SHRI MANGALAM TRADERS, MAHASAMUND,MAHASAMUD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MAHASAMUND, MAHASAMUD

In the result, appeal of the assessee firm is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.538/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Shri Mangalam Traders 1, Village-Parsada, Post- Bemcha, Tehsil: Mahasamund-493 445 (C.G.) Pan : Abdfs1546F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Mahasamund (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

section under which disallowance has been made under the of income tax act, 1961. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.19,91,000/- made on account of bogus purchases without appreciating the fact that the disallowance was made mechanically without appreciating the evidences furnished by the assessee and also without rejecting the books of account

SHRI SHRI AJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL,AMBIKAPUR (CG) vs. THE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMBIKAPUR (CG)

Appeals of the assessee are allowed in terms of our aforesaid terms, with no order as to cost

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 260 & 261/Rpr/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Ajay Kumar Agrawal, Juna Gaddi Road, Po: Ambikapur (C.G.) Pan : Acqpa 4988 B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Office, Kharsia Road, Po: Ambikapur (C.G) .……""थ" / Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Shri G. S. Agrawal Revenue By : Shri G. N. Singh सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 04/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14/03/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Jamlappa D. Battull, Am; The Present Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The First Appellate Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax - Appeals, Bilaspur [For Short “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Vide Order Dt 21/03/2016, Which In Turn Sprung From The Assessment Order [For Short “Ao”] Dt 04/03/2013 & 23/01/2014 Passed For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2010- 2011 & 2011-2012 By The Ld Assessing Officer [For Short “Ld Ao”] U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”].

disallowance to ₹10,000/- in case of travelling & vehicle maintenance, despite of the fact that, all these business expenditure debited to profit & loss account [for short “P&L”] and claimed in the return of income has all the valid characteristic laid in section 37(1) of the Act; ITAT-Raipur Page 7 of 11 ITA Nos. 260

SHRI SHRI AJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL,AMBIKAPUR (CG) vs. THE INCOOME TAX OFFICER, AMBIKAPUR (CG)

Appeals of the assessee are allowed in terms of our aforesaid terms, with no order as to cost

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 260 & 261/Rpr/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Ajay Kumar Agrawal, Juna Gaddi Road, Po: Ambikapur (C.G.) Pan : Acqpa 4988 B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Office, Kharsia Road, Po: Ambikapur (C.G) .……""थ" / Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Shri G. S. Agrawal Revenue By : Shri G. N. Singh सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 04/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14/03/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Jamlappa D. Battull, Am; The Present Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The First Appellate Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax - Appeals, Bilaspur [For Short “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Vide Order Dt 21/03/2016, Which In Turn Sprung From The Assessment Order [For Short “Ao”] Dt 04/03/2013 & 23/01/2014 Passed For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2010- 2011 & 2011-2012 By The Ld Assessing Officer [For Short “Ld Ao”] U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”].

disallowance to ₹10,000/- in case of travelling & vehicle maintenance, despite of the fact that, all these business expenditure debited to profit & loss account [for short “P&L”] and claimed in the return of income has all the valid characteristic laid in section 37(1) of the Act; ITAT-Raipur Page 7 of 11 ITA Nos. 260

DY.C.I.T.1(1), RAIPUR (CG) vs. M/S NAVBHARAT PRESS, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member Dcit-1(1), Raipur-1 Vs Navbharat Press, Press Complex, G.E.Road, Raipur(C.G.)-492001 Pan No. : Aadfn 0350 R (Appellant) Tsednepser .. Revenue By : Shri Ajit Kumar Laskar, Dr Assessee By : None(Written Submission) Date Of Hearing : 12/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 15/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri N.S.Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Raipur, Dated 12.06.2014 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :- “1. Whether In Law & On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Interest U/S.36(1)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Of Rs.41,54,811/- As Interest Bearing Funds Were Used For Non-Business Purposes.” 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Derives Income From Printing & Publishing Of Hindi Daily Newspaper “Nav Bharat” & English Daily “Central Chronicle” From Raipur. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,85,77,530/-. Thereafter The Ao Framed The Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Act Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.2,27,32,341/-.

section 36(1)(iii). The A.O. herself at paragraph 4.1 of the order has observed that, "three conditions are required to be satisfied in order to enable the assesses to claim deduction in respect of interest on borrowed capital, namely: (1) that money (capital)must have been borrowed by the assesses. (2)That it must have been borrowed

M/S D.C CONSTRUCTION,BILASPUR(CG) vs. DY.. C.I.T. CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR(CG)

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S D.C. Construction, The Dy. Commissioner Of B-1, Parijat Extension, Income Tax-Circle 1(1), Nehru Nagar, Mahima Complex, Bilaspur (C.G.) Vs. Vyapar Vihar, Pan: Aaffd8842E Bilaspur (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri G.S. Agrawal (Ca) Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 09/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/06/2018

260/-. Since, the case was selected for scrutiny notice u/s 143 (2) and 142 (1) were issued and in response to the said notices, the authorized representative of the assessee appeared before the AO and filed written submissions 2 Assessment Year: 2010-11 and other details. It was seen that the assessee had claimed various expenses in P&L account

FIVE STARCONSTRUCTION COMPANY,BHILAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), BHILAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.45/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Five Star Construction Company Plot No.96-97, Light Industrial Area, Chawani Chowk, Bhilai (C.G)-490026 Pan : Aaaff4316L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

Section 145(3) of the Act. The A.O after rejecting the books of 9 Five Star Construction Company Vs. DCIT-1(1), Bhilai accounts of the assessee proceeded with to assess its income in the manner provided in Sec. 144 of the Act and made the following additions/disallowances:- S. No. Particulars Amount (In Rs.) 1. Disallowance of the excess

DY C.I.T..1(1), RAIPUR (CG) vs. SHRI ISMAIL MOHAMMED, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2011-

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Dy. Commissioner Of Shri Ismail Mohammed, Income Tax-1(1), 24/347, Dr. Virdhi Gali Marg, Central Revenue Building, Jawahar Nagar, Civil Lines, Vs. Raipur (C.G.) Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aispm8617R (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Sheetal Shashwat Verma (Dr) Assessee By : None (Written Submission) Date Of Hearing: 05/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2018

260 ITR 637 (Del) and Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of CIT Vs. South India Corporation (Agencies) Ltd. 290 ITR 217 (Mad) are also in favour of the appellant. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case as also decisions cited above, the disallowance made by the A.O. cannot be sustained. Hence, the disallowance is deleted

CHHATTISGARH METALIKS AND ALLOYS PVT. LTD.,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -3(3), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.114/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Chhattisgarh Metaliks & Alloys Private Limited Mohini B-5, Merlin Jayashree Vihar, Mandi Gate, Pandri Tarai, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aadcc9242J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(3), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

260 (Mum). Also, a similar view had been taken by the ITAT, Mumbai in its recent order passed in the case of ITO Vs. Rajeev Ratanlal Tulshyan (2021) 136 Taxman.42 (Mum). In fact, we find that the CBDT vide its Circular No.10 of 2018, dated 31.12.2018, had earlier clarified that the provisions of section 56(2)(viia

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

DY. C.I.T.1(1), BILASPUR(CG) vs. JSPL,, RAIGARH(C.G)

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member Dcit-1(1), Bilaspur- Vs Jspl, 495004 Kharsia Road, Raighagh(Cg) Pan No. : Aabcj 4683 J (Appellant) .. Tsednepser Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Dr Assessee By : Shri Mayank Jain, Ar Date Of Hearing : 12/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 15/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri N.S.Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Bilaspur, Dated 31.03.2014 For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. The Sole Grievance Of The Revenue Is That The Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Amount To The Extent Of Rs.2,10,89,707/- Out Of Disallowance Of Rs.3,36,18,098/- Made By The Ao Under The Head Corporate Social Responsibility Expenses. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Domestic Company, A Subsidiary Of Jindal Steel &.Power Limited (Jspl). It Derives Income From Power Generation & Mining. The Company Has Commenced The Commercial Generation Of Thermal Power From Its First Of The Four Units Of 250Mw Each From 08.12.2007. The Assessee Company Filed Its Income Tax Return For The Year Under Consideration Declaring

disallowance to the extent of Rs.2,10,89,707/-. While doing so, the CIT(A) held as under :- “ Decision - Submission of the Ld. AR. report of the AO and rejoinder to the report of the AO were considered carefully. Corporate social responsibility, also called corporate conscience, corporate citizenship, social performance, or sustainable responsible business/ Responsible Business is a form

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. MAHAMAYA STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD, RAIPUR

In the result, cross objections preferred by the assessee in CO

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.232 To 235/Rpr/2014 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2012-13

section 145(3) of the Act. The variation in yield and consumption of power etc. could be for various reasons. There is no finding by the Assessing Officer that actual quantity of finished goods sold by the assessee was more than what it was shown in the accounts books on the strength of documentary evidence. 7.24 It is seen that

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. MAHAMAYA STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD, RAIPUR

In the result, cross objections preferred by the assessee in CO

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.232 To 235/Rpr/2014 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2012-13

section 145(3) of the Act. The variation in yield and consumption of power etc. could be for various reasons. There is no finding by the Assessing Officer that actual quantity of finished goods sold by the assessee was more than what it was shown in the accounts books on the strength of documentary evidence. 7.24 It is seen that

XANDER FINANCE PVT. LTD., MUMBAI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 549/Rpr/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2019-20)

section 205 r.w.s. 201 of the Income Tax Act, the default is on the part of deductor for which there are sufficient provisions in Income Tax Act to recover the TDS amount from the persons who as deducted it. The assessee, therefore, should not be penalized for the act of deductors. Ld. AR placed his reliance on the following judgments

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, BHAKHARA, KURUD,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

disallowing the deduction u/s80P(2) of other income including dividend income of Rs.7,15,444/ and membership fees/entry fees income of Rs.285/ totaling to Rs. 7,15,729/. The learned AO has only allowed dividend income of Rs.1,53,238/ as exempt and the entire amount of Rs 5,62,206/ which is clearly eligible for the deduction u/s80P

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, BHENDRI,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

disallowing the deduction u/s80P(2) of other income including dividend income of Rs.7,15,444/ and membership fees/entry fees income of Rs.285/ totaling to Rs. 7,15,729/. The learned AO has only allowed dividend income of Rs.1,53,238/ as exempt and the entire amount of Rs 5,62,206/ which is clearly eligible for the deduction u/s80P

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, KURUD,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

disallowing the deduction u/s80P(2) of other income including dividend income of Rs.7,15,444/ and membership fees/entry fees income of Rs.285/ totaling to Rs. 7,15,729/. The learned AO has only allowed dividend income of Rs.1,53,238/ as exempt and the entire amount of Rs 5,62,206/ which is clearly eligible for the deduction u/s80P

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, DOMA,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

disallowing the deduction u/s80P(2) of other income including dividend income of Rs.7,15,444/ and membership fees/entry fees income of Rs.285/ totaling to Rs. 7,15,729/. The learned AO has only allowed dividend income of Rs.1,53,238/ as exempt and the entire amount of Rs 5,62,206/ which is clearly eligible for the deduction u/s80P

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, DONAR,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

disallowing the deduction u/s80P(2) of other income including dividend income of Rs.7,15,444/ and membership fees/entry fees income of Rs.285/ totaling to Rs. 7,15,729/. The learned AO has only allowed dividend income of Rs.1,53,238/ as exempt and the entire amount of Rs 5,62,206/ which is clearly eligible for the deduction u/s80P