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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without specifying whether it is for “concealment of Income” or for “furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income” in the show cause notice given and therefore, the impugned penalty order dated 30 January 2015 passed by him is bad in law, thus, deserves to be quashed.” On the other hand the revenue

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without specifying whether it is for “concealment of Income” or for “furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income” in the show cause notice given and therefore, the impugned penalty order dated 30 January 2015 passed by him is bad in law, thus, deserves to be quashed.” On the other hand the revenue

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

section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without specifying whether it is for “concealment of Income” or for “furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income” in the show cause notice given and therefore, the impugned penalty order dated 30 January 2015 passed by him is bad in law, thus, deserves to be quashed.” On the other hand the revenue

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

section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without specifying whether it is for “concealment of Income” or for “furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income” in the show cause notice given and therefore, the impugned penalty order dated 30 January 2015 passed by him is bad in law, thus, deserves to be quashed.” On the other hand the revenue

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without specifying whether it is for “concealment of Income” or for “furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income” in the show cause notice given and therefore, the impugned penalty order dated 30 January 2015 passed by him is bad in law, thus, deserves to be quashed.” On the other hand the revenue

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without specifying whether it is for “concealment of Income” or for “furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income” in the show cause notice given and therefore, the impugned penalty order dated 30 January 2015 passed by him is bad in law, thus, deserves to be quashed.” On the other hand the revenue

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without specifying whether it is for “concealment of Income” or for “furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income” in the show cause notice given and therefore, the impugned penalty order dated 30 January 2015 passed by him is bad in law, thus, deserves to be quashed.” On the other hand the revenue

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without specifying whether it is for “concealment of Income” or for “furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income” in the show cause notice given and therefore, the impugned penalty order dated 30 January 2015 passed by him is bad in law, thus, deserves to be quashed.” On the other hand the revenue

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

section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without specifying whether it is for “concealment of Income” or for “furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income” in the show cause notice given and therefore, the impugned penalty order dated 30 January 2015 passed by him is bad in law, thus, deserves to be quashed.” On the other hand the revenue

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

section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without specifying whether it is for “concealment of Income” or for “furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income” in the show cause notice given and therefore, the impugned penalty order dated 30 January 2015 passed by him is bad in law, thus, deserves to be quashed.” On the other hand the revenue

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without specifying whether it is for “concealment of Income” or for “furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income” in the show cause notice given and therefore, the impugned penalty order dated 30 January 2015 passed by him is bad in law, thus, deserves to be quashed.” On the other hand the revenue

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

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

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

DOLPHIN PROMOTERS AND BUILDERS,RAIPUR vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 58/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2011-12)

Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act amounting to Rs.20,000/- for two defaults (non- compliance with the statutory notices issued u/s 143(2)/ 142 of the I.T. Act) was levied. 4.2 Order was passed u/s 144, making the following additions: 4 Dolphin Promoters and Builders vs Addl. CIT, Range-1, Raipur 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid additions

KHOMRAM CHANDRAWANSHI (HUF), ,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(1), RAIPUR, 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. 165/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Khomram Chandrawanshi (Huf) House No.18, Ring Road Chowk, Krishnasakha Society, Rohinipuram, Raipur-492 001 (C.G) Pan : Aakhk2082E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

47,480/-. Also, the A.O while culminating the assessment initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars with respect to the aforesaid addition of Rs.20,50,910/- made in the hands of the assessee. 3. The A.O after culmination of the assessment, therein vide his order passed u/s.271(1)(c) dated 23.06.2017 imposed

M/S. RUKMANI ENGINEERING WORKS, (NOW RUKMANI INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,,ODISHA vs. THE DY. CIT- CIRCLE- KORBA,, KORBA(CG)

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee firm being devoid and bereft of any merit is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.81/Rpr/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Rukmani Engineering Works (Now Rukmani Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.) Mig-384, Svbp Nagar, Jamnipali, Korba (C.G.) Pan: Aaifr4667G

47,172/- [Rs.37,67,172/-(+) Rs.9,00,000/-]. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the CIT(Appeals) are culled out as under: “Decision-Submission made by the Ld. AR was considered carefully. The AO In the order of assessment u/s.144 dated 21- 12-2010 estimated the income from business at Rs.1,09,53,867/- by applying net profit

K.V.S. PRAKASA RAO,BHILAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), BHILAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2015-16 K.V.S. Prakasa Rao, Dcit, Circle- 1(1), Flat No.524/ Kalpkriti Parisar Bhilai (Cg). Avadhpuri, Ashish Nagar (W), Vs. Risali, Bhilai (Cg).

2. Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer which has been confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is the only issue raised by the above assessees in their respective grounds of appeal. 3. All the above assessees are employees of SAIL, Bhilai Steel Plant and derive income from salary