SANTOSH JAIN, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), BHILAI, DURG

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 144, 146 & 148/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1993-94, 1994-95 & 1995-96 Santosh Jain Opp. P.N Tiwari, Gandhi Chowk, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan: Afypj6194D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

260A or an appeal to the Supreme Court under section 261 or revision under section 263 or section 264 and an order imposing or enhancing or reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the imposition of penalty is passed before the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal or the High Court or the Supreme Court

SANTOSH JAIN, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), BHILAI, DURG

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 144, 146 & 148/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1993-94, 1994-95 & 1995-96 Santosh Jain Opp. P.N Tiwari, Gandhi Chowk, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan: Afypj6194D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

260A or an appeal to the Supreme Court under section 261 or revision under section 263 or section 264 and an order imposing or enhancing or reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the imposition of penalty is passed before the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal or the High Court or the Supreme Court

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX, RAIPUR vs. BALAJEE LOHA PVT. LTD., RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 356/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15)

271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated separately. 7 DCIT vs Balajee Loha Pvt. Ltd., Raipur 3.7 Ld. AO, further observed another discrepancy in the P&L of the assessee and had made the following estimated addition: 4. During the course of proceedings, from perusal of P&L account it is found that the assessee has debited Rs.1

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

Section 260A of the Act, which is confined to entertaining only such appeals against the order which involves a substantial question of law.” It was observed by the Hon'ble High Court that as the credit balance appearing in the books of account of the assessee did not pertain to the year under consideration, therefore, there was no justification

SHRI SHRI DEVI CHAND JAIN,KAWARDHA (C.G.) vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, 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

Section 260A of the Act, which is confined to entertaining only such appeals against the order which involves a substantial question of law.” It was observed by the Hon'ble High Court that as the credit balance appearing in the books of account of the assessee did not pertain to the year under consideration, therefore, there was no justification