DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. MESERS SHREE JAGDAMBA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 37 To 42/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15)

Section 40A(3) of the Act. 5. The AO was, however, not satisfied with the explanations of the assessee and consequently disallowed the expenses incurred amounting to Rs.6,42,06,726/- and accordingly assessed the income at Rs.7,70

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. MESERS SHREE JAGDAMBA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 37 To 42/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15)

Section 40A(3) of the Act. 5. The AO was, however, not satisfied with the explanations of the assessee and consequently disallowed the expenses incurred amounting to Rs.6,42,06,726/- and accordingly assessed the income at Rs.7,70

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. MESERS SHREE JAGDAMBA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 37 To 42/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15)

Section 40A(3) of the Act. 5. The AO was, however, not satisfied with the explanations of the assessee and consequently disallowed the expenses incurred amounting to Rs.6,42,06,726/- and accordingly assessed the income at Rs.7,70

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. MESERS SHREE JAGDAMBA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 37 To 42/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15)

Section 40A(3) of the Act. 5. The AO was, however, not satisfied with the explanations of the assessee and consequently disallowed the expenses incurred amounting to Rs.6,42,06,726/- and accordingly assessed the income at Rs.7,70

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. MESERS SHREE JAGDAMBA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 37 To 42/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15)

Section 40A(3) of the Act. 5. The AO was, however, not satisfied with the explanations of the assessee and consequently disallowed the expenses incurred amounting to Rs.6,42,06,726/- and accordingly assessed the income at Rs.7,70

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. MESERS SHREE JAGDAMBA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 37 To 42/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15)

Section 40A(3) of the Act. 5. The AO was, however, not satisfied with the explanations of the assessee and consequently disallowed the expenses incurred amounting to Rs.6,42,06,726/- and accordingly assessed the income at Rs.7,70

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.

70 taxmann.com 310 81. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. We find that the Assessing Officer has disallowed the expenditure incurred by the assessee on account of „tree plantation expenses‟ and „others‟ to be capital in nature, whereas the CIT(A) relying on the orders of his predecessors has deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing

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.

70 taxmann.com 310 81. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. We find that the Assessing Officer has disallowed the expenditure incurred by the assessee on account of „tree plantation expenses‟ and „others‟ to be capital in nature, whereas the CIT(A) relying on the orders of his predecessors has deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing

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 by the A.O, but at the same time are unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the manner in which he had thereafter assessed the income vide his order passed under Sec.144 r.w.s. 143(3), dated 31.12.2016. We, say so, for the reason that though the A.O had in clear and unequivocal terms rejected the books of accounts

MANILAL DAYALJI & CO,DHAMTARI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE 2(1), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.290/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Manilal Dayalji & Co. Gola Bidi Works, Sadar Bazar, Dhamtari (C.G.) Pin : 493773 Pan : Aagfm4587N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Dcit-2(1), Central Revenue Building, Civil Lane, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri R.B. Doshi, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 17.03.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.03.2022

section 14A read with Rule 8D – Rs.4,70,298/- (ii) Disallowance out of management and development expenses for investments – Rs.1,73,774/-. (iii) Adhoc disallowance out of telephone and travelling expenses of Rs.1 lakh. 2.2. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the assessment order before the CIT(A), but without any success. 3

ACIT (CENTRAL), BILASPUR vs. M/S. BARBARIK PROJECT LTD., SURAJPUR

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed, and Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.70/Rpr/2021 & Cross Objection No.20/Rpr/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.70/Rpr/2021) िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 V. Acit (Central) M/S. Barbarik Project Ltd., Bilaspur Ward No.13, Nehru Park, Surajpur (C.G.) [Pan: Aadcb 4662 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By Shri S. R. Rao, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2023

70,700/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was picked up for reopening the assessment under Section 147 of the Act according to the reasons to believe that the assessee has incurred expenditure on salary and wages in cash during the year from undisclosed sources, assessee incurred bogus sub- CO No.20/RPR/2022 :: 3 :: contract expenses and SD/EMD deposits were made

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIEDS LIMITED,BILASPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BILASPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 314/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. South Eastern Coalfields Limited Seepat Road, Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495006 Pan: Aadcs2066E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

section 270A(9) in the penalty show- 3 M/s. South Eastern Coalfields Limited Vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur cause notice: rendering penalty order passed by him bad-in- law, which is liable to be quashed. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred by computed misreported income

RAVI SHERWANI,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4(1), RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 64/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ravi Sherwani H-26, Rajeev Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Azbps6703J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-4(1), Raipur (C.G.)

disallowing cost of improvement of Rs.1,11,02,013.00 without going through actual facts and circumstances. 4. The appellant reserves the right to amend, modify or add any of the grounds of appeal.” Also, the assessee has raised an additional ground of appeal before us, which reads as under: “On the facts and circumstances of the case

NISHANT JAIN,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, BILASPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 510, 511 & 512/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Nishant Jain Ring Road No.2, Shanti Nagar, Near Sidhasikhar Vistar, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Agepj9793M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

disallowed assessee’s claim for deduction of delayed deposits of employee’s share of contribution towards ESI/PF of Rs.84,398/-. Accordingly, the A.O vide his order passed u/s. 143(3), dated 14.12.2019 after, inter alia, making the aforesaid addition determined the income of the assessee at Rs.1,90,32,450/-. 17 Nishant Jain Vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur

NISHANT JAIN,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), BILASPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 510, 511 & 512/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Nishant Jain Ring Road No.2, Shanti Nagar, Near Sidhasikhar Vistar, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Agepj9793M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

disallowed assessee’s claim for deduction of delayed deposits of employee’s share of contribution towards ESI/PF of Rs.84,398/-. Accordingly, the A.O vide his order passed u/s. 143(3), dated 14.12.2019 after, inter alia, making the aforesaid addition determined the income of the assessee at Rs.1,90,32,450/-. 17 Nishant Jain Vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur

NISHANT JAIN,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), BILASPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 510, 511 & 512/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Nishant Jain Ring Road No.2, Shanti Nagar, Near Sidhasikhar Vistar, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Agepj9793M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

disallowed assessee’s claim for deduction of delayed deposits of employee’s share of contribution towards ESI/PF of Rs.84,398/-. Accordingly, the A.O vide his order passed u/s. 143(3), dated 14.12.2019 after, inter alia, making the aforesaid addition determined the income of the assessee at Rs.1,90,32,450/-. 17 Nishant Jain Vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur

SHRI SHRI DEEPAK KUMAR PATEL,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1), RAIPUR (CG)

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.336/Rpr/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2010-11 Shri Deepak Kumar Patel, Hind Pipe Industries, New Timber Market, Fafadih, Raipur (C.G.)-492 009 Pan : Akgpp0868F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

3. Shri Bharat Patel Rs.16,00,000/- On a perusal of the details that were filed by the assessee in support of his aforesaid claim of expenses, it was observed by the A.O that the bills/vouchers that were produced in support thereof were found to be very sketchy. On being specifically queried and called upon to substantiate the details

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)

70,120/- was paid to Magma finance company is disallowed and added under section 40a(ia) of the Act.( Para-8 page-4) 9. CIT observation: - The CIT appeal confirmed the above addition Para 2.3 Page 4 10. The assessee has challenge the notice under section 143(2) and assessment order passed under section 143(3

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

section 5, when it is received or deemed to be received by a person. All income for the purpose of charge of income-tax and computation of total income is required to be classified under distinct heads of income such as salaries, income from house property, profits and gains of business or profession, capital gains and income from other sources