M/S M/S NAV BHARAT PRESS,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3(1), RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.06/Rpr/2017 & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.162/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 & 2015-2016) M/S Nava Bharat Press, Vs Acit, Cirlce-3(1), Raipur Press Complex, G.E.Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pan No. : Aadfn 0350 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

section 36(i)(iii) cannot be made. However, the contentions of the assessee were not accepted by the Ld AO and the disallowance of Rs. 55,14,591/- was made. 7. Ld AR further drew our attention to the working of cash funds/ cash profit generated year wise available at page 40 of the paper book, extracted as under

M/S IND SYNERGY LIMITED,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(2), RAIPUR (CG)

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 312/Rpr/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ind Synergy Limited Gokul Puram, Kachna Road, Khamardih, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaaci7072D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Abhishek Mahawar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shravankumar Meena, Dr

88,976/- that was disallowed by the Assessing Officer by taking recourse to section 3 M/s. Ind Synergy Limited Vs. DCIT

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-2(1)BHILAI, BHILAI(CG) vs. M/S SMS SHIVNATH INFRASSTRUCTURE PVT LTD., DURG, DURG(CG)

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.87/Rpr/2017 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Acit-2(1), Bhilai Vs M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.,Toll Plaza, Near Dhamdhanaka, Durg. Pan No. :Aadcs 2258 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.107/Rpr/2016 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Vs Pr.Cit-2, Raipur Pvt Ltd.,Toll Plaza, Near Dhamdhanaka, Durg. Pan No. :Aadcs 2258 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

disallowance. 12. The CIT(A) accordingly allowed the appeal of the Assessee and deleted the addition of Rs. 13,90,58,404 and restored the deduction claimed under section 80lA at Rs. 23,88

M/S SMS SHIVNATH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,DURG(CG) vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.87/Rpr/2017 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Acit-2(1), Bhilai Vs M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.,Toll Plaza, Near Dhamdhanaka, Durg. Pan No. :Aadcs 2258 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.107/Rpr/2016 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Vs Pr.Cit-2, Raipur Pvt Ltd.,Toll Plaza, Near Dhamdhanaka, Durg. Pan No. :Aadcs 2258 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

disallowance. 12. The CIT(A) accordingly allowed the appeal of the Assessee and deleted the addition of Rs. 13,90,58,404 and restored the deduction claimed under section 80lA at Rs. 23,88

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

MOHAN SUKUMARAN,,RAIGARH(CG) vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), BILASPUR(CG)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

88,205/- imposed on account of disallowance carried out under section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act in short

M/S BEC INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,DURG vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHILAI

In the result ground no. 3 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.66/Rpr/2020 (Assessment Year: 2014-2015) M/S Bec Infra Private Limited, Vs Circle-3(1), Raipur 47, Motilal Nehru Nagar, Durg Pan No. :Aagcm 0049 N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Nilesh Jain, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/04/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-Ii, Raipur, Dated 31.12.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2. At The Outset, Ld. Sr. Dr Submitted That The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 59 Days, Which Can Be Further Extended Since The Claim Of The Assessee That The Order Was Served After 38 Days Of Delay Was Not Supported By Any Documentary Evidence. As Per Appeal Memo In Form No.36, The Date Of Service Of Communication Of The Order Was 7Th February, 2020 & The Appeal Was Filed On 08.06.2020. On This Aspect, The Ld. Ar Submitted That This Was The Covid-19 Period & The Hon’Ble Apex Court Has Already Directed To Extend The Limitation For That Period, Therefore, The Delay May Be Condoned. The Submission Of The Ld. Ar Found Satisfactory & Acceptable & Accordingly, The Delay In Filing The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned.

Section 15.19 of the said agreement, it shall be 60 days from the date of agreement i.e April’12. Accordingly, it was agreed to deliver the equipment by June’ 2013. As per the ld. AR the assessee started importing the drawings and designs services and have incurred Rs. 1,88,99,712/- on such services in preceding

DY. C.I.T. 1(2), RAIPUR (CG) vs. M/S HIRA FERRO ALLOYS LTD.,, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed for assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

88,332/- thereby giving relief of Rs.4,61,041/-. 27. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has made cash payment exceeding Rs.20,000/- and Rs.35,000/- to the transporters. The Assessing officer required the assessee to explain as to why these expenses should not be disallowed as per provisions of section

DY. C.I.T. 1(2), RAIPUR (CG) vs. M/S HIRA FERRO ALLOYS LTD.,, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed for assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

88,332/- thereby giving relief of Rs.4,61,041/-. 27. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has made cash payment exceeding Rs.20,000/- and Rs.35,000/- to the transporters. The Assessing officer required the assessee to explain as to why these expenses should not be disallowed as per provisions of section

DY. C.I.T. 1(2), RAIPUR (CG) vs. M/S HIRA FERRO ALLOYS LTD.,, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed for assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

88,332/- thereby giving relief of Rs.4,61,041/-. 27. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has made cash payment exceeding Rs.20,000/- and Rs.35,000/- to the transporters. The Assessing officer required the assessee to explain as to why these expenses should not be disallowed as per provisions of section

CHHATTISGARH STATE BEVERAGES LTD.,RAIPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.38, 39 & 40/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Chhattisgarh State Beverages Corporation Limited Aabkari Bhavan, Chokra Nala, Labhandi, Raipur-492 001 Pan : Aaccc3163B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1 (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

disallowance of VAT expenses amounting to Rs.53,65,46,087/- may kindly be deleted and Revision Order may kindly be quashed/annulled.” 3. Succinctly stated, the assessee company which is wholly owned by the State Government of Chhattisgarh had e-filed its return of income for A.Y.2015-16 on 30.09.2015, declaring an income of Rs. 22,88,04,100/-. Subsequently, the assessee

CHHATTISGARH STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LTD.,RAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-1, RAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.38, 39 & 40/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Chhattisgarh State Beverages Corporation Limited Aabkari Bhavan, Chokra Nala, Labhandi, Raipur-492 001 Pan : Aaccc3163B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1 (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

disallowance of VAT expenses amounting to Rs.53,65,46,087/- may kindly be deleted and Revision Order may kindly be quashed/annulled.” 3. Succinctly stated, the assessee company which is wholly owned by the State Government of Chhattisgarh had e-filed its return of income for A.Y.2015-16 on 30.09.2015, declaring an income of Rs. 22,88,04,100/-. Subsequently, the assessee

CHHATTISGARH STATE BEVERAGES LTD.,RAIPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.38, 39 & 40/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Chhattisgarh State Beverages Corporation Limited Aabkari Bhavan, Chokra Nala, Labhandi, Raipur-492 001 Pan : Aaccc3163B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1 (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

disallowance of VAT expenses amounting to Rs.53,65,46,087/- may kindly be deleted and Revision Order may kindly be quashed/annulled.” 3. Succinctly stated, the assessee company which is wholly owned by the State Government of Chhattisgarh had e-filed its return of income for A.Y.2015-16 on 30.09.2015, declaring an income of Rs. 22,88,04,100/-. Subsequently, the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), RAIPUR vs. MESERS VANDANA ISPAT LIMITED, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

section 14A of the Act in the absence of exempt income. 26. On this aspect revenue has also placed some judicial principle laid down by Hon’ble Chennai High court and Delhi High court in the cases as referred to in ground no 22 in the case of (i) Sira Industries & Holding Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 54 SOT 49(Chen

SHIV TRADING CO., RAIGARH,RAIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.101/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shiv Trading Co. Saranggarh Road, Chhatamuda Chowk, Raigarh-496 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aaqfs3990K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Nfac, Delhi. ……""यथ" / Respondent

88,000/- under section 69C of the income tax act, 1961. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance

M/S NEO TECH ENGINEERING,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act wherein Explanations have been inserted by Finance Act, 2021 qua employees’ share in respect of PF & ESI Act, is also unsustainable . 5.4 In view of the above discussions, the disallowances of Rs.5,88

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

Section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act wherein Explanations have been inserted by Finance Act, 2021 qua employees’ share in respect of PF & ESI Act, is also unsustainable . 5.4 In view of the above discussions, the disallowances of Rs.5,88

DILIP CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, BALOD,BALOD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHILAI, DURG

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.78/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dilip Construction Company Main Road, New Market, Dalli Rajhara, Balod (C.G.)-491 228 Pan : Aadfd9426A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

88,346/- made by the A.O u/s.36(1)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the Act is herein vacated. 15. Apropos the disallowance of the balance amount of Rs.3,50,173/- (out of Rs.5,44,519/-) qua the delayed deposit of employees share of contribution made by the A.O u/s.36(1)(va) r.w.s