SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

penalty) It is in the background of discharge of these statutory obligations of an assessee to fully and truly disclose his income under various heads and indicate the income under those heads which is chargeable to income-tax after making permissible deductions, applicability of provisions of section 271(1)(c) is to be viewed. If a person obliged to furnish

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

penalty) It is in the background of discharge of these statutory obligations of an assessee to fully and truly disclose his income under various heads and indicate the income under those heads which is chargeable to income-tax after making permissible deductions, applicability of provisions of section 271(1)(c) is to be viewed. If a person obliged to furnish

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

penalty) It is in the background of discharge of these statutory obligations of an assessee to fully and truly disclose his income under various heads and indicate the income under those heads which is chargeable to income-tax after making permissible deductions, applicability of provisions of section 271(1)(c) is to be viewed. If a person obliged to furnish

THE DY. CIT- CIR.-1(1),, BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFILDS LTD.,, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

penalty) It is in the background of discharge of these statutory obligations of an assessee to fully and truly disclose his income under various heads and indicate the income under those heads which is chargeable to income-tax after making permissible deductions, applicability of provisions of section 271(1)(c) is to be viewed. If a person obliged to furnish

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD,BILASPUR(CG) vs. DY.. C.I.T.-1(1), BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

penalty) It is in the background of discharge of these statutory obligations of an assessee to fully and truly disclose his income under various heads and indicate the income under those heads which is chargeable to income-tax after making permissible deductions, applicability of provisions of section 271(1)(c) is to be viewed. If a person obliged to furnish

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

penalty) It is in the background of discharge of these statutory obligations of an assessee to fully and truly disclose his income under various heads and indicate the income under those heads which is chargeable to income-tax after making permissible deductions, applicability of provisions of section 271(1)(c) is to be viewed. If a person obliged to furnish

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

penalty) It is in the background of discharge of these statutory obligations of an assessee to fully and truly disclose his income under various heads and indicate the income under those heads which is chargeable to income-tax after making permissible deductions, applicability of provisions of section 271(1)(c) is to be viewed. If a person obliged to furnish

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

penalty) It is in the background of discharge of these statutory obligations of an assessee to fully and truly disclose his income under various heads and indicate the income under those heads which is chargeable to income-tax after making permissible deductions, applicability of provisions of section 271(1)(c) is to be viewed. If a person obliged to furnish

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

penalty) It is in the background of discharge of these statutory obligations of an assessee to fully and truly disclose his income under various heads and indicate the income under those heads which is chargeable to income-tax after making permissible deductions, applicability of provisions of section 271(1)(c) is to be viewed. If a person obliged to furnish

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED,BILASPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

penalty) It is in the background of discharge of these statutory obligations of an assessee to fully and truly disclose his income under various heads and indicate the income under those heads which is chargeable to income-tax after making permissible deductions, applicability of provisions of section 271(1)(c) is to be viewed. If a person obliged to furnish

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), BILASPUR vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED, BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

penalty) It is in the background of discharge of these statutory obligations of an assessee to fully and truly disclose his income under various heads and indicate the income under those heads which is chargeable to income-tax after making permissible deductions, applicability of provisions of section 271(1)(c) is to be viewed. If a person obliged to furnish

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)

purchase of motorcycle in cash i.e. Rs.1,25,000/- is added to his total income treated as unexplained investment u/s 69 and tax is charged as per provisions of section 115BBE of the I.T. Act. The assessee has offered Rs.1,25,000/- for taxation during search proceedings in statement u/s 132(4), however, the assessee has not included Rs.1

ASHOK KUMAR WADHWANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.117 &118/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17 Ashok Kumar Wadhwani, Ujwal Udyog, Sinodha, Neora, Tilda, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aahpw1400B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

bogus firm and stands at Rs. 4,87,500/-(as per purchase ledger dt. 18,12,2013 of M/s Maa Sharda Process) The same is added to the total income of the assesses u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Penalty proceedings u/s 271

ASHOK KUMAR WADHWANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.117 &118/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17 Ashok Kumar Wadhwani, Ujwal Udyog, Sinodha, Neora, Tilda, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aahpw1400B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

bogus firm and stands at Rs. 4,87,500/-(as per purchase ledger dt. 18,12,2013 of M/s Maa Sharda Process) The same is added to the total income of the assesses u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Penalty proceedings u/s 271

VIJAY KUMAR CHHATTANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.120/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vijay Kumar Chhattani, S.S.D. Agro Tech Building, Village Tulsi, Neora, Tilda, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Pan: Afapc4410R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

purchase amount works out at Rs.49,03,125/- is hereby added to the total income of the assessee in respect of transaction shown to have been made with different bogus firms. The 5 Vijay Kumar Chhattani Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(2), Raipur assessee has furnishing inaccurate particulars of his income, Penalty proceedings u/s 271

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.)

bogus exemption under section 10(38) of the Act on account of long-term capital gains arising from transactions in penny stock. 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in holding that the surrender of income by the assessee discharges him from the penal consequences under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without

INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1),BHILAI, BHILAI vs. ASHISH GUPTA, DURG

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.624/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11

bogus dealer and the beneficiary is identified as Ganapati Wires, Prop Shri Ashish Gupta, the assessee.” Accordingly, the A.O made the following additions: “6. For the reason discussed above, for inflating the above purchases, the said amount of Rs.5,52,334/- is added to the total income u/s.69C of the Act being unexplained expenditure. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271

SHRI DEVI CHAND JAIN vs. I.T.O. WARD-2, RAJNANDGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 277/Rpr/2016 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 78/Rpr/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Devi Chand Jain Prop. M/S. Loonkaram Devi Chand Jain, Main Road, Pandariya (C.G.) Pan : Abfpj6738Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Rajnandgaon. ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri S.R Rao, A.R Revenue By : Shri G.N Singh, D.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2022 A.Ys.2008-09

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( in short ‘the Act’) for assessment year 2008-09. 2. We shall first deal the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2008-09 pertaining to quantum assessment. Before us, the assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: “1. In the facts and circumstances