DY.C.I.T. 1 vs. SMT SANGEETA CHAWLA, BHILAI(CG)

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2011-2012

disallowance of Rs.32,04,800/- made by the AO on excess claim of deduction for cost of acquisition of the property.” 3. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee has inter-alia shown Rs.10,80,400/- on account of Short Term Capital Gain

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), RAIPUR vs. HI-TECH ABRASIVE PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.142/Rpr/2018 (Assessment Year: 2014-2015) Acit, Circle-2(1), Raipur Vs Hi-Tech Abrasive Pvt. Ltd. 740, Sector-B, Urla Industrial Area, Raipur Pan No. :Aaach 5950 M & Cross Objection No.14/Rpr/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.142/Rpr/2018) (Assessment Year: 2014-2015) Hi-Tech Abrasive Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Circle-2(1), Raipur 740, Sector-B, Urla Industrial Area, Raipur Pan No. :Aaach 5950 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R. B. Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 14/07/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19/07/2023

gain. Corollary to this, in the present case since the entire block has been exhausted and the net result is loss such loss will be treated as short term capital loss. The AO is directed to treat the amount of Rs. 1,75,76,465/- as short term capital loss.” 12. Carrying the arguments further, learned AR of the assessee

PANCHSHEEL SOLVENT PVT. LTD., RAJANANDGAON,RAJANANDGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Appeal is allowed, partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 110/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2016-17)

short term capital gain by the Hon Assessing officer is bad in law and justified the order of Id AO by learned commissioner without application of mind is not proper and justified. 7. For the reason that the lumpsum adhock addition of Rs.1,45,473/-on account of clerical error made by assessee and treating the same as unexplained investment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), , RAIPUR vs. SHRI RADHESHYAM AGRAWAL, 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.32/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. Radheshyam Agrawal 27/B, Ankit Choubey Colony, Raipur (C.G.). Pan : Aczpa6544J ……""यथ" / Respondent

short ‘the Act’) dated 27.12.2017 for assessment year 2015-16. Before us the department has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether on the facts of the cases and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of deduction u/s 54F amounting to Rs.2,59,08,966/- ignoring the facts that

SHRI VIJAY TONDON,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), RAIPUR

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. 93/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Vijay Tondon, H.No.34, Sector-1, Shankar Nagar Road, Gitanjali Nagar, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Abupt1550H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

short, ‘Act’), dated 31.10.2018 for A.Y.2013-14. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), has been erred for passing an ex-parte order u/s.144 r.w.s.147 as the notice u/s.148 was itself bad in law and order passed in response to such notice is also null

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. AJAY GOLECHAA, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.454/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

short ‘the Act’) assessing total income of the assessee at Rs.23,18,810/- as against returned income of Rs.5,81,210/- making an addition of Rs.17,37,600/- for the year under consideration. The issue of addition was on account of claim of exemption u/s. 10(38) of the Act on long term capital income with regard to sale

DY. C.I.T.1(2), RAIPUR (CG) vs. M/S GODAWARI POWER & ISPAT LTD.,, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit- 1(2), Godawari Power & Ispat Ltd., Raipur (Cg). Plot No.482/2, Industrial Growth Vs. Centre, Phase- 1, Siltara, Raipur (Cg).

Disallowance u/s 14A of the I.T. Act 2,25,43,398 Delayed payment of Employees’ 2,10,551 contribution to the Provident Fund/ ESI Income chargeable under the head business : 53,38,40,180 and profession 2. Long term capital gain, as per the revised 9,88,867 return Short

RAIPUR SECURITIES AND INVESTMENT LIMITED,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), RAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issue

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaiआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 164/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Raipur Securities & Investment Ltd. Mig 21, Indravati Colony, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaccr4419F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

short “ld. AO “] observed that 4 A.Y.2014-15 5. On the basis of detailed reasons given in assessment and also considering the facts of the case it is quite clear that there was no bona fide reason due to which the said income derived from LTCG on sale of land has been left to be shown in its return of income

M/S SHARDA ENERGY & MINERALS LIMITED,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF IMCOME TAX, CENTRALCIRCLE-1,RAIPUR-2, RAIPUR (CG)

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

short term capital gain is to be reduced so as arrive at book profit to Rs. 1,99,32,588/- and if the interest is not added back by the department and also the travelling expenditure of Rs. 64,358/- is not added then book profit is reduced to Rs. 79,000/- in place

RAJESH AGRAWAL,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 45/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rajesh Agrawal C/O. Goyal Traders, Gudiyari, Raipur-492 009 Pan : Acjpa4635J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

Term Capital Gain Rs.1,38,579 On a perusal of the details it was observed by the A.O that the assessee a/w another co-owner, viz. Smt. Chanda Devi Agrawal had claimed to have incurred an expenditure of Rs. 13 lacs on the development of the 5 Rajesh Agrawal Vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Raipur land that was sold

SIDDHI CHHAJED, RAJNANDGAON,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD RAJNANDAON, RAJNANDGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

short term capital gains was Rs.19,192/-. 4. During the First Appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had upheld the addition made by the CPC/A.O on the technical ground of method of computation. The Department has not denied the fact that the 3 Titiksha Chhjed & Siddhi Chhajed Vs. ITO, Ward-Rajnandgaon ITA Nos. 831 & 832/RPR/2025 assessee in her return

TITIKSHA CHHAJED, RAJNANDGAON,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD RAJNANDGAON, RAJNANDGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

short term capital gains was Rs.19,192/-. 4. During the First Appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had upheld the addition made by the CPC/A.O on the technical ground of method of computation. The Department has not denied the fact that the 3 Titiksha Chhjed & Siddhi Chhajed Vs. ITO, Ward-Rajnandgaon ITA Nos. 831 & 832/RPR/2025 assessee in her return

MAYA DEVI AGRAWAL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(3), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 193/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Maya Devi Agrawal Near Dena Bank, Dupan Para Kharora, Raipur (C.G.)-493 225 Pan : Acipa5876A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(3), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

short ‘the Act’) dated 28.03.2014 for assessment year 2008-09. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.6,23,903/- on account of long term capital gain

THE GRAMIN SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,RAIPUR (CG) vs. TJE INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3), RAIPUR (CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battull

capital which was not immediately required, and was deposited in bank so as to earn interest income would be attributable to the profit and gains of its business of providing credit facilities to its members and thus, would be eligible for deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the Hon’ble High Court

THE GRAMIN SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3), RAIPUR (CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battull

capital which was not immediately required, and was deposited in bank so as to earn interest income would be attributable to the profit and gains of its business of providing credit facilities to its members and thus, would be eligible for deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the Hon’ble High Court

THE SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITIT MARYADIT,GHATULA,RAJNANDGAON vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-2, RAJNANDGAON

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battull

capital which was not immediately required, and was deposited in bank so as to earn interest income would be attributable to the profit and gains of its business of providing credit facilities to its members and thus, would be eligible for deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the Hon’ble High Court

THE GRAMIN SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,BALODA BAZAR(C.G0 vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3), RAIPUR (CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battull

capital which was not immediately required, and was deposited in bank so as to earn interest income would be attributable to the profit and gains of its business of providing credit facilities to its members and thus, would be eligible for deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the Hon’ble High Court

THE GRAMIN SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,DHAMTARI(C.G) vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI(C.G)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battull

capital which was not immediately required, and was deposited in bank so as to earn interest income would be attributable to the profit and gains of its business of providing credit facilities to its members and thus, would be eligible for deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the Hon’ble High Court