SHRI VIJAY KUMAR PATEL,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 212/Rpr/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18)

1), (a) to (b)** ** ** (c) Where any order referred to in this sub-section and passed by the Assessing Officer had been the subject matter of any appeal [filed on or before or after the 1st day of June, 1988], the powers of the Commissioner under this Sub-section shall extend and shall be deemed always to have extended

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 :

section 54 cannot be allowable. Finally, being dissatisfied, the AO disallowed Rs.2,11,95,096/- the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s.54 of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 5. Being aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) allowed the appeal

SMT. TILOTTAMA JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

disallowing the claim of deduction put forth u/s.54B of the Act and to consequently initiate penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on the specified issue by erroneously concluding that the essential conditions specified under the provisions of section 54B are not satisfied thereby holding that the said order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial

SANKET JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

disallowing the claim of deduction put forth u/s.54B of the Act and to consequently initiate penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on the specified issue by erroneously concluding that the essential conditions specified under the provisions of section 54B are not satisfied thereby holding that the said order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial

SANJOG JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

disallowing the claim of deduction put forth u/s.54B of the Act and to consequently initiate penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on the specified issue by erroneously concluding that the essential conditions specified under the provisions of section 54B are not satisfied thereby holding that the said order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial

SMT. PUSHPA JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

disallowing the claim of deduction put forth u/s.54B of the Act and to consequently initiate penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on the specified issue by erroneously concluding that the essential conditions specified under the provisions of section 54B are not satisfied thereby holding that the said order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial

SANJOG JHABAK L/H OF LATE GAUTAM CHAND JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

disallowing the claim of deduction put forth u/s.54B of the Act and to consequently initiate penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on the specified issue by erroneously concluding that the essential conditions specified under the provisions of section 54B are not satisfied thereby holding that the said order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial

SAMPAT LAL JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

disallowing the claim of deduction put forth u/s.54B of the Act and to consequently initiate penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on the specified issue by erroneously concluding that the essential conditions specified under the provisions of section 54B are not satisfied thereby holding that the said order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial

SMT. SUSHILA DEVI JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

disallowing the claim of deduction put forth u/s.54B of the Act and to consequently initiate penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on the specified issue by erroneously concluding that the essential conditions specified under the provisions of section 54B are not satisfied thereby holding that the said order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial

DOLPHIN PRAMOTERS AND BUILDERS,RAIPUR vs. C.I.T-1, RAIPUR

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Ram Lal Negi)

1,32,88,082/- and the sundry creditors of the assessee includes two creditors namely (i) Dolphin Associates Rs. 57,91,176/- and (ii) Dolphin Promoters Rs. 41,42,536/- which are group concerns of the assessee and are not trade creditors and therefore can be safely considered as part of the interest free funds thereby making the total interest

MOHAMMAD AKHTAR KHAN,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), BHILAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩलसं. / Ita No. 87/Rpr/2019 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-2014 Mohammad Akhtar Khan Ibrahim Bada, Nr Masjid Titurdih, Raipur, (C.G.) . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(1), Bhilai (C.G.) . . . . . . .प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri R. B. Doshi Revenue By : Shri Gitesh Kumar सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 16/11/2022 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 16/11/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Assessee By The Present Appeal Challenges The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Raipur [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 26/04/2017 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] Confirming The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1) Raipur [For Short “Ao”] For The Assessment Year 2013-14 [For Short “Ay”] 2. The Grounds Raised In The Appeal Memo Are;

Section 54F of the Act. The case of the assessee clearly comes within the ken of the ratio of the aforesaid decision. The decision in the case of CIT v. P.V. Narasimhan 181 ITR 101 (Mad), as relied by the ld. Counsel was considered in the case of Pradeep Kumar (supra). In view of the decision of the Jurisdictional ITAT