DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR vs. CHHATTISGARH STATE POWER TRANSMISSION COMPANY LTD., RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2 & 3/Rpr/2023 Co Nos. 19 & 20/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

271(1)(c) with respect to the said amount. CO Nos. 19 & 20/RPR/2023 38. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) relied on the order of the A.O. 39. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record and considered the judicial pronouncements

PRAKASH DAVARA,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COIMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE 4(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, 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. 177/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Prakash Davara, 08, Gitanjali Nagar, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Acupd0169K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-4(1), Raipur (C.G.)

271(1)(c) when the same was not levied in assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.147, 21.02.2014. Reopening of case just for the sake of initiation of penalty is bad in law, against law of natural justice. 6. That on the facts and on the circumstances of the case, ld. AO erred in reopening of the case

BEERASWAMY YOGESHWAR MUDALIAR, AMBIKAPUR,AMBIKAPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, AMBIKAPUR, AMBIKAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.36/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Beeraswamy Yogeshwar Mudaliar Ward No.4, Gandhinagar, Veer Sawarkar Marg, P.O. Ambikapur, Dist. Surguja-497 001 Pan: Bnxpm2592L

271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated, but after rectifying u/s. 154, this penalty does not attract. In response to the notice u/s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961 the assessee filed return of his income on 24-04-2018 vide Ack. No.612516340240418 showing total taxable salary income of Rs.3,02,680/- is accepted, and therefore

MESERS KANWARSHREE BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-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.146/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Kanwarshree Buildcon P. Ltd. Maa Annapurna Complex, Banjari Road, Gol Bazar Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001. Pan : Aacck6889N .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri G.N Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2022

rectification order u/s 154, dated 24.09.2015 the A.O subjected the assessee to penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income u/s.271(1)(c) of Rs. 5,04,600/- i.e as regards its wrong/irregular adjustment of brought forward loss of Rs.16,32,927/. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without any success

SHRI RAVI KEWALTANI,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), BHILAI

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Ravi Kewaltani, Ito, Ward- 2(1), Bombay Footwear, G.E. Road, Bhilai (Cg). Vs. Pachari Para, Durg (Cg).

penalty proceedings is initiated u/s 271(1)(c).” 3 5. Before the ld. CIT(A), assessee made elaborate submissions. However, the ld. CIT(A) was also not satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee and sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer by observing as under :- “I have gone through the grounds of appeal, seen the order

SRINIVAS RACHIRAJU, PUNE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), BHILAI, DURG

The appeal is dismissed under mistaken belief about the facts

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 361/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2011-12)

rectification application u/s 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for restoration of appeal, which was wrongly dismissed holding that appellant has opted for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme Act, 2020 against assessment order, while Declaration filed under VSVS Act was with respect to Penalty order and not against assessment order. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case

ARUNA TIWARI,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 90/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Aruna Tiwari 762, Sundar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Adbpt4977B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

271 (All. HC), state the true facts and make out a case. Similarly the Indore Bench of the Madhya (iii) PCIT v. Mohd. Rizwan Prop. M/s. Pradesh High Court in the case of Ajit Kumar M.R.Garments [2018] 11 ITR-OL 149 Pitaliya v. Income Tax Officer (2008) 318 ITR (All. HC),. 0182 dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine