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 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. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 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

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 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 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

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

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

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

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.)

48,123/- 7,98,71,053/- (+) 6,06,77,070/- duty or cess incl. STT and CTT Electricity Expenses 8,89,71,315/- 8,71,00,455/- (+) 18,71,082/- Other expenses 46,71,61,966/- 44,12,17,233/- (+) 2,59,44,733/- Total addition on 8,84,92,885/- books profit The AO, based on the aforesaid revision

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.)

48,123/- 7,98,71,053/- (+) 6,06,77,070/- duty or cess incl. STT and CTT Electricity Expenses 8,89,71,315/- 8,71,00,455/- (+) 18,71,082/- Other expenses 46,71,61,966/- 44,12,17,233/- (+) 2,59,44,733/- Total addition on 8,84,92,885/- books profit The AO, based on the aforesaid revision

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), RAIPUR vs. SHRI RAKESH SINGH, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.231/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Acit-3(1), Raipur Vs Shri Rakesh Singh, A-4, Mahaveer Singh, Tagore Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan No. : Acwps 6453 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. Dr ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

48,734/- which is above the prescribed limit (i.e. Rs. 50,00,000/-).Further, the case does not fall under any exceptional clause of Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 by the CBDT, New Delhi, as well as amended para issued vide letter dated 20.08.2018, therefore filing of further appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT is recommended in this case

PRAKASH BHANSALI,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-4(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed in terms of our observations above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 23/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Prakash Bhansali 11/1, Anop Diamonds, Bhansali Niwas, Sadar Bazar, Raipur (C.G) Pan : Addpb8997K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-4(1), Raipur (C.G.)

48,520/-. The A.O. in the body of the assessment order initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271B of the Act. 5. After putting the assesse to notice and considering his reply, the A.O. observed that the assessee had, without reasonable cause, failed to get his accounts audited and furnished a tax audit report within the stipulated 4 Prakash Bhansali Vs. ACIT

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

ASHOK KUMAR WADHWANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.117 &118/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17 Ashok Kumar Wadhwani, Ujwal Udyog, Sinodha, Neora, Tilda, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aahpw1400B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT. Act are Initiated separately for concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars of Income. (Addition of Rs.4,87,500/-) 8. In the Profit & loss account Freight expenses of Rs.10,99,144/-, Hamali expenses of Rs.2,35,116/- are claimed. On verification and also during the course of scrutiny assessment, it is admitted that