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) of the Act w.r.t the delayed deposit by the assessee company of the employees share of contributions towards labour welfare funds, set aside the same. 23. In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee in CO No.19/RPR/2023 for A.Y.2016-17 is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. 24. Resultantly, both the appeal of 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

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 to notice as regards the default for which penalty under Sec. 271(1

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

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 to notice as regards the default for which penalty under Sec. 271(1

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

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 to notice as regards the default for which penalty under Sec. 271(1

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

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 to notice as regards the default for which penalty under Sec. 271(1

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

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 to notice as regards the default for which penalty under Sec. 271(1

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

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 to notice as regards the default for which penalty under Sec. 271(1

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

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 to notice as regards the default for which penalty under Sec. 271(1

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

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 to notice as regards the default for which penalty under Sec. 271(1

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

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 to notice as regards the default for which penalty under Sec. 271(1

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

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 to notice as regards the default for which penalty under Sec. 271(1

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

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 to notice as regards the default for which penalty under Sec. 271(1

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

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 to notice as regards the default for which penalty under Sec. 271(1

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

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 to notice as regards the default for which penalty under Sec. 271(1

BHUWANESHWAR SHUKLA, BHILAI,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), BHILAI, DURG

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of accordingly

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 141 & 142/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Bhuwaneshwar Shukla Lig 12/06, Mansarowar Colony, Shiv Mandir, Bhilai-3, Durg-490 021 Pan: Ccips5734D ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Durg ……""यथ" / Respondent

271(1)(c) passed by assessment unit NFAC dated 10.05.2024, respectively. 5. The grounds of appeal assailed by the assessee against the impugned order are as under: 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in not deciding the legal ground challenging

BHUWANESHWAR SHUKLA, BHILAI,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), BHILAI, DURG

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of accordingly

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 141 & 142/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Bhuwaneshwar Shukla Lig 12/06, Mansarowar Colony, Shiv Mandir, Bhilai-3, Durg-490 021 Pan: Ccips5734D ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Durg ……""यथ" / Respondent

271(1)(c) passed by assessment unit NFAC dated 10.05.2024, respectively. 5. The grounds of appeal assailed by the assessee against the impugned order are as under: 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in not deciding the legal ground challenging

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. AJAY GOLECHAA, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.454/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

u/s. 10(38) of the Act on long term capital income with regard to sale of shares. Penalty was levied by the A.O u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on the assessee vide order dated 23.06.2017 for “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” by observing as follows: “In this case, order under section 143(3) of the Income

SHARDA STEEL TRADERS, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 111, 112, 113, 114, 115 & 116/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11,2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 )

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). 4 ITA Nos. 111 – 116/RPR/2025 Sharda Steel Traders Vs. ACIT/DCIT Central Circle 2, Raipur 8. Ground 8: The assessee craves leave to add, urge, alter or withdraw any ground/s before or at the time of hearing of this appeal. 6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm