PADMA DHURWAY, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), BHILAI, DURG

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 272/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Padma Dhurway, Near Pawan Kirana Store, Sangram Chowk, Prem Nagar, Sikola Bhata, Durg (C.G.)-491 001. Pan : Aarpd5814C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

disallowance of deduction claimed under sections 10AA, 80-IA, 80-IAB, 80-IB, 80-IC, 80-ID or section 80

M/S. JAI ENTERPRISES,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No.107/Rpr/2021) (Assessment Year: 2019-20)

disallowance of deduction claimed under sections 10AA, 80-IA, 80- IAB, 80-IB, 80-IC, 80-ID or section 80

BHUNESHWAR PRASAD SAHU, BALODA BAZAR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- BHATAPARA, BHATAPARA

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed in terms of our observations above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.109/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Bhuneshwar Prasad Sahu Main Road, Raseda, Baloda Bazar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Bayps7721N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Khapradih, Bhatapara ……""यथ" / Respondent

disallowance of deduction claimed under sections 10AA, 80-IA, 80-IAB, 80-IB, 80-IC, 80-ID or section 80

GURMEET SINGH HORA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, 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. 45/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Gurmeet Singh Hora A-1, Sai Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaoph6268D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Center (Cpc), Bengaluru ……""यथ" / Respondent

disallowance of deduction claimed under sections 10AA, 80-IA, 80-IAB, 80-IB, 80-IC, 80-ID or section 80

SATPAL SINGH SANDHU,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 04/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Satpal Singh Sandhu 151/2, Ward -1, Sandhu Bhavan, Guru Govind Singh Marg, Heerapur, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Cseps7315E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

disallowance of deduction claimed under sections 10AA, 80-IA, 80-IAB, 80- IB, 80-IC, 80-ID or section 80

BUNDELAS SECURITAS AND CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD., BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 59 & 60/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 Bundelas Securities & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. L-38, Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 223 Pan : Aaccb6831H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

disallowance of deduction claimed under sections 10AA, 80-IA, 80-IAB, 80-IB, 80-IC, 80-ID or section 80

BUNDELAS SECURITAS AND CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD., BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 59 & 60/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 Bundelas Securities & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. L-38, Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 223 Pan : Aaccb6831H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

disallowance of deduction claimed under sections 10AA, 80-IA, 80-IAB, 80-IB, 80-IC, 80-ID or section 80

AADHARSHILA BUILDERS PVT. LTD., BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1 (1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.129/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2023-24 Aadharshila Builders Private Limited Opp. C.G. Bhawan, Tilak Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Aabca4675P

disallowance of deduction of Rs.1,58,83,864/- claimed under Section 80-IBA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground

NANESH PROJECTS,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

disallowance of deduction claimed under sections 10AA, 80-IA, 80-IAB, 80-IB, 80-IC, 80-ID or section 80

PRANAV TRUST, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), BHILAI, DURG

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 177/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Pranav Trust Baniya Para, Durg-491 001 (C.G.)-491 001 Pan : Aabtp9694C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

disallowance of deduction claimed under sections 10AA, 80-IA, 80- IAB, 80-IB, 80-IC, 80-ID or section 80

LS METATECH PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO, CIRCLE 1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.766/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2024-25 Ls Metatech Private Limited 109, 1St Floor, Meghdoot Complex, Behind Vandana Bhawan, M. G. Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aadcl5735B

disallowing the deduction claimed u/s 80-IAC of the Act on the alleged ground that the audit report in Form 10CCB was not filed at least one month prior to the due date for furnishing return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act (“the specified due date”). 2. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate and ought to have

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. SHRI BAJRANG POWER AND ISPAT LTD., 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. 201/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Bajrang Power & Ispat Limited, 00, Vill. Borjhara, Urla Guma Road, Raipur-493221. Pan : Aaccb2944D ……""यथ" / Respondent

disallowance of the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s. 80IA by triggering sub-section (8) of Section 80IA of the Act was based on fallacious premises. Elaborating on his aforesaid view, the CIT(Appeals) observed that the A.O had committed an illegality in computing the market value of electricity by taking into account the rate charged to a supplier

GODAWARI POWER AND ISPAT LTD.,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NATIONAL INFORMATICS CENTER, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

80-IA in respect of profits arising out of such activity, for purpose of such deduction market value of power supplied by assessee to its AEs should be computed considering rate of power charged by State Electricity Board for supply of electricity to industrial consumers - Held, yes - Whether, in view of aforesaid, assessee was justified in adopting

ARUN KUMAR VERMA, BHILAI,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(2), BHILAI, DURG

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.79 & 80/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-2020 Arun Kumar Verma Plot No.152, Telgu Para, Maroda Tank, Maroda, Bhilai (C.G.) Pan : Abkpv0530H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

disallowance u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act of the delayed deposit of employee’s share of contributions towards ESI/PF. However, the aforesaid application filed by the assessee seeking rectification was rejected by the CPC vide its order passed u/s.154 of the Act dated 23.09.2020. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order passed by the A.O/CPC, Bengaluru u/s.154

ARUN KUMAR VERMA, BHILAI,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(2), BHILAI, DURG

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.79 & 80/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-2020 Arun Kumar Verma Plot No.152, Telgu Para, Maroda Tank, Maroda, Bhilai (C.G.) Pan : Abkpv0530H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

disallowance u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act of the delayed deposit of employee’s share of contributions towards ESI/PF. However, the aforesaid application filed by the assessee seeking rectification was rejected by the CPC vide its order passed u/s.154 of the Act dated 23.09.2020. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order passed by the A.O/CPC, Bengaluru u/s.154

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)-1, RAIPUR vs. M/S. CHHATTISGARH STEEL & POWER LIMITED, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 96/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

Section 43B or anything contained in that provision would not absolve the assessee from its liability to deposit the employee’s contribution on or before the due date as a condition for deduction. 55. In the light of the above reasoning, this court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the approach of the impugned judgment

BEC PROJECTS LTD., ,BHILAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 06/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Bec Projects Limited 4/5, Industrial Estate, Bhilai (C.G.)-490 020 Pan : Aaacb9275H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

80,427/-. 4. Aggrieved the assessee assailed the disallowance of its claim for deduction of delayed deposit of employee’s share of contributions towards ESI and EPF before the CIT(Appeals), but without any success. The CIT(Appeals) observed that as the issue in hand, i.e. allowability of the delayed deposit of the employee’s share of contributions towards ESIC

SHRI SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR AGRAWAL, KORBA,KORBA(CG) vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,RANGE KORBA, KORBA(CG)

In the result, appeal of the assesee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 93 & 94/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Prop. Of M/S. Shrikishan & Co., T.P Nagar, Korba (C.G.) Pan : Acgpa4350B .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

section 14A, as it was added back in the income of the assessee in preceding Assessment Year i.e. 2010-11.” 52. At the very outset of the hearing of the appeal the Ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘AR’) for the assessee submitted that he was not pressing the ground of appeal No.1. In view of the concession

SHRI SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR AGRAWAL, KORBA,KORBA(CG) vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,RANGE KORBA, KORBA(CG)

In the result, appeal of the assesee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 93 & 94/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Prop. Of M/S. Shrikishan & Co., T.P Nagar, Korba (C.G.) Pan : Acgpa4350B .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

section 14A, as it was added back in the income of the assessee in preceding Assessment Year i.e. 2010-11.” 52. At the very outset of the hearing of the appeal the Ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘AR’) for the assessee submitted that he was not pressing the ground of appeal No.1. In view of the concession