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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

9. Disallowance of assessee’s claim for For “furnishing of inaccurate deduction of LD penalty particulars of income” 23. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the order passed by the A.O under Sec.271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 30.01.2015 before the CIT(A), who partly sustained the order of the A.O, observing as under:- “Decision

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

9. Disallowance of assessee’s claim for For “furnishing of inaccurate deduction of LD penalty particulars of income” 23. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the order passed by the A.O under Sec.271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 30.01.2015 before the CIT(A), who partly sustained the order of the A.O, observing as under:- “Decision

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

9. Disallowance of assessee’s claim for For “furnishing of inaccurate deduction of LD penalty particulars of income” 23. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the order passed by the A.O under Sec.271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 30.01.2015 before the CIT(A), who partly sustained the order of the A.O, observing as under:- “Decision

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

9. Disallowance of assessee’s claim for For “furnishing of inaccurate deduction of LD penalty particulars of income” 23. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the order passed by the A.O under Sec.271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 30.01.2015 before the CIT(A), who partly sustained the order of the A.O, observing as under:- “Decision

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

9. Disallowance of assessee’s claim for For “furnishing of inaccurate deduction of LD penalty particulars of income” 23. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the order passed by the A.O under Sec.271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 30.01.2015 before the CIT(A), who partly sustained the order of the A.O, observing as under:- “Decision

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

9. Disallowance of assessee’s claim for For “furnishing of inaccurate deduction of LD penalty particulars of income” 23. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the order passed by the A.O under Sec.271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 30.01.2015 before the CIT(A), who partly sustained the order of the A.O, observing as under:- “Decision

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

9. Disallowance of assessee’s claim for For “furnishing of inaccurate deduction of LD penalty particulars of income” 23. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the order passed by the A.O under Sec.271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 30.01.2015 before the CIT(A), who partly sustained the order of the A.O, observing as under:- “Decision

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

9. Disallowance of assessee’s claim for For “furnishing of inaccurate deduction of LD penalty particulars of income” 23. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the order passed by the A.O under Sec.271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 30.01.2015 before the CIT(A), who partly sustained the order of the A.O, observing as under:- “Decision

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

9. Disallowance of assessee’s claim for For “furnishing of inaccurate deduction of LD penalty particulars of income” 23. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the order passed by the A.O under Sec.271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 30.01.2015 before the CIT(A), who partly sustained the order of the A.O, observing as under:- “Decision

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

9. Disallowance of assessee’s claim for For “furnishing of inaccurate deduction of LD penalty particulars of income” 23. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the order passed by the A.O under Sec.271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 30.01.2015 before the CIT(A), who partly sustained the order of the A.O, observing as under:- “Decision

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

9. Disallowance of assessee’s claim for For “furnishing of inaccurate deduction of LD penalty particulars of income” 23. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the order passed by the A.O under Sec.271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 30.01.2015 before the CIT(A), who partly sustained the order of the A.O, observing as under:- “Decision

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)

271(1)(c) of the Act, whereas the case is related to AY 2017-18, therefore, the penalty provisions of section 271AAC are applicable. Accordingly, the assessment order 7 Shri Vijay Kumar Patel, Raipur vs PCIT, Raipur-1 dated 26.03.2022, is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue, therefore, the same is set aside

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.)

9) of Section 270A was satisfied, thus, the A.O had wrongly assumed jurisdiction and saddled the assessee company with penalty under the aforesaid statutory provision. The Ld. AR, to fortify his aforesaid claim, had drawn support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Schneider CO Nos. 19 & 20/RPR/2023 Electric South East Asia

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.)

9) of Section 270A was satisfied, thus, the A.O had wrongly assumed jurisdiction and saddled the assessee company with penalty under the aforesaid statutory provision. The Ld. AR, to fortify his aforesaid claim, had drawn support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Schneider CO Nos. 19 & 20/RPR/2023 Electric South East Asia

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1.1. RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. RENU BEHL, 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.289/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

section 271(1)(c).” 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed her original return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 on 05.10.2012, declaring an income of Rs.7,79,500/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act. Notice u/s. 148 dated 29.03.2019 was issued to the assessee. In response, the assessee had filed her return

M/S VIJENDRA SINGH & ASSOCIATES,BILASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), BILASPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.113/Rpr/2018 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) M/S Vijendra Singh & Associates, Vs Ito, Ward-1(2), Bilaspur C/O-Bedford Earthmovers Inc. Rajeev Gandhi Chowk, Jarhabhata, Bilaspur (Cg) Pan No. :Aaaav 6865 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He noted that there were reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. For failure on the part of the assessee to furnish return of income for the above assessment year, notice under Section

SRI SAI BABA SANSTHAN, BHILAI,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.247 & 248/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 Sri Sai Baba Sansthan Sai Mandir, Avenue-B, Civic Center, Sector-6, Bhilai-490 006 (C.G.) Pan: Aadts8938G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Exemption-Ii, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

271(1)(c) is hereby initiated as the assessee did not file ROI suo-moto u/s 139 and filed the ROI only after issuance of notice u/s 148. Considering the above and on the basis of replies filed, the assessed income of the assessment year 2012-13 is determined as under. Returned and Assessed income: Rs.20,44,873/-” The appellant

SRI SAI BABA SANSTHAN, BHILAI,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.247 & 248/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 Sri Sai Baba Sansthan Sai Mandir, Avenue-B, Civic Center, Sector-6, Bhilai-490 006 (C.G.) Pan: Aadts8938G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Exemption-Ii, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

271(1)(c) is hereby initiated as the assessee did not file ROI suo-moto u/s 139 and filed the ROI only after issuance of notice u/s 148. Considering the above and on the basis of replies filed, the assessed income of the assessment year 2012-13 is determined as under. Returned and Assessed income: Rs.20,44,873/-” The appellant