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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

36 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) income, the penalty imposed by him u/s 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. 14. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue before us and after deliberating on the facts, are of the considered view, that the failure on the part of the A.O to clearly put the assessee

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

36 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) income, the penalty imposed by him u/s 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. 14. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue before us and after deliberating on the facts, are of the considered view, that the failure on the part of the A.O to clearly put the assessee

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

36 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) income, the penalty imposed by him u/s 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. 14. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue before us and after deliberating on the facts, are of the considered view, that the failure on the part of the A.O to clearly put the assessee

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

36 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) income, the penalty imposed by him u/s 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. 14. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue before us and after deliberating on the facts, are of the considered view, that the failure on the part of the A.O to clearly put the assessee

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

36 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) income, the penalty imposed by him u/s 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. 14. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue before us and after deliberating on the facts, are of the considered view, that the failure on the part of the A.O to clearly put the assessee

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

36 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) income, the penalty imposed by him u/s 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. 14. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue before us and after deliberating on the facts, are of the considered view, that the failure on the part of the A.O to clearly put the assessee

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

36 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) income, the penalty imposed by him u/s 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. 14. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue before us and after deliberating on the facts, are of the considered view, that the failure on the part of the A.O to clearly put the assessee

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

36 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) income, the penalty imposed by him u/s 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. 14. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue before us and after deliberating on the facts, are of the considered view, that the failure on the part of the A.O to clearly put the assessee

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

36 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) income, the penalty imposed by him u/s 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. 14. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue before us and after deliberating on the facts, are of the considered view, that the failure on the part of the A.O to clearly put the assessee

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

36 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) income, the penalty imposed by him u/s 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. 14. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue before us and after deliberating on the facts, are of the considered view, that the failure on the part of the A.O to clearly put the assessee

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

36 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) income, the penalty imposed by him u/s 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. 14. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue before us and after deliberating on the facts, are of the considered view, that the failure on the part of the A.O to clearly put the assessee

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.)

36(1)(va)(sic) of the delayed deposit of employees' share of contribution towards labor welfare funds; we find substance in the claim of the Ld. AR that the assessee company was not liable to be visited with penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act as regards the aforesaid addition/disallowance. 21. Admittedly, as on the relevant point of time

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.)

36(1)(va)(sic) of the delayed deposit of employees' share of contribution towards labor welfare funds; we find substance in the claim of the Ld. AR that the assessee company was not liable to be visited with penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act as regards the aforesaid addition/disallowance. 21. Admittedly, as on the relevant point of time

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)

36, the assessment framed ought to have been passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, and not u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, therefore, such assessment order is unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed, consequently, the order of Pr. CIT u/s 263 passed on such a non-est order had exceeded his jurisdiction

RAIPUR SECURITIES AND INVESTMENT LIMITED,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), RAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issue

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaiआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 164/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Raipur Securities & Investment Ltd. Mig 21, Indravati Colony, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaccr4419F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

u/s 271(1)(c). The penalty imposed by the AO and confirmed by CIT (A) is not justified and is illegal. 3. The appellant reserves the right to add, amend or alter any ground or ground/s of appeal. 3 A.Y.2014-15 4. The fact as culled out from the records is that the assessment was made under section

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.)

36 NYPTJJ 428 (Nag.). 7 Prakash Davara Vs. ACIT-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) 11. On a specific query by the Bench that now when it was an admitted fact that the order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s. 263 of the Act, dated 30.03.2016 had not been assailed any further in appeal by the assessee, therefore, on what basis

SANGEETA GOLCHHA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO-4(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.788/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Sangeeta Golchha 9/532, Behind Mahavir Bhawan, Budhapara, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Adcpg6259Q

36,950/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income solely on the ground that the reasons for disclosure by the assessee and surrendering of LTCG was due to the confrontation made by the A.O and therefore, if it was not done by the A.O, the assessee, therefore, had filed inaccurate particulars of income

SHRI SHRI PRITESH KUMAR JAIN,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal of the assessee being devoid and bereft of any merits is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 317/Rpr/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Pritesh Kumar Jain C/O. M/S. Rishabh Builders, D-14, Shailendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G)-492 001 Pan : Acipj9611L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur. ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By :Shri R.B. Doshi, Ar Revenue By :Shri P.K. Mishra, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 09.02.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.03.2022

36 lacs was offered by Shri Basant Kumar Jain, i.e. uncle of the assessee. Backed by the aforesaid facts, the disclosure of Rs. 2 crore (supra) that was made by the assessee in his statement recorded u/s 132(4), dated 22.03.2012 was comprised of as under: 4 Pritesh Kumar Jain Vs. DCIT Name Disclosure Basant Kumar Jain