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.)

reassessed has the effect of reducing the loss or converting such loss into income. …………………………… (9) The cases of misreporting of income referred to in sub-section (8) shall be the following, namely:— (a) misrepresentation or suppression of facts; (b) failure to record investments in the books of account; (c) claim of expenditure not substantiated by any evidence; (d) recording

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.)

reassessed has the effect of reducing the loss or converting such loss into income. …………………………… (9) The cases of misreporting of income referred to in sub-section (8) shall be the following, namely:— (a) misrepresentation or suppression of facts; (b) failure to record investments in the books of account; (c) claim of expenditure not substantiated by any evidence; (d) recording

M/S NRTMT(INDIA) PVT. LTD,RAIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR

In the result, while for the appeal/preliminary objection filed by the assessee company in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.03/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Nr Tmt (India) Pvt. Ltd. Flat No.106, Goverdhan Tower, Chaitanya Nagar, Raigarh Pan: Aaecp8302R

loss, etc., there are chances of minor difference; (iii) the method adopted for weighment of stock by search party was not proper; (iv) no incriminating material was found during search 'which could prove that the assessee had purchased or sold the goods outside the books; (v) the difference in shortage was due to wrong estimation of loose commodities

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. M/S. N. R. TMT(INDIA) PVT. LTD., RAIGARH

In the result, while for the appeal/preliminary objection filed by the assessee company in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.03/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Nr Tmt (India) Pvt. Ltd. Flat No.106, Goverdhan Tower, Chaitanya Nagar, Raigarh Pan: Aaecp8302R

loss, etc., there are chances of minor difference; (iii) the method adopted for weighment of stock by search party was not proper; (iv) no incriminating material was found during search 'which could prove that the assessee had purchased or sold the goods outside the books; (v) the difference in shortage was due to wrong estimation of loose commodities

JAIN ENTERPRISES, BHILAI,DURG vs. PCIT, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as above

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 187/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19) Jain Enterprises, Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 87-B, Light Industrial Area, Raipur-1, Central Revenue Building, Bhilai-490026, C.G. Civil Lines, Raipur, 492001, C.G. Pan: Aagfj3469G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri S. R. Rao, Advocate राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Ram Tiwari, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 11/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2018-19 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.03.2025 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1 (‘Pcit’) Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

carried out any enquiry/investigation/verification, which should have been made before concluding the reassessment. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Paville Project Pvt. Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 6126 of 2021 order dated 06.04.2023 has held that the scheme of the Income Tax is to levy and collect tax in accordance with the provisions

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. M/S SUNIL SPONGE PVT. LTD., RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.73/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Central Circle)-1, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Sunil Sponge Pvt. Ltd. H. No.11, Jalvihar Colony, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aahcs7999A ……""यथ" / Respondent

reassessment proceedings observed that the entire discount was provided by debiting a singly entry on 31.03.2007, however, the material was sold throughout the year and the accounting for the same ought to have been done after every sale transaction. The through its written submission has explained that the quantity discount, as per agreement, could have only been calculated

POLICE WELFARE SOCIETY, RAJNANDGAON,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- RAJNANDGAON, RAJNANDGAON

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 255 & 256/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2018-19)

loss account. However, on perusal of bank statement reveal that the amount of Rs.24,88,95,987/- deposited during the year under consideration. It is pertinent to mention that this bank account has all cash/credit entries in respect of the sale of petroleum products. Therefore, the amount of Rs.24,88,95,987/- is treated as total sales for the year

POLICE WELFARE SOCIETY, RAJNANDGAON,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- RAJNANDGAON, RAJNANDGAON

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 255 & 256/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2018-19)

loss account. However, on perusal of bank statement reveal that the amount of Rs.24,88,95,987/- deposited during the year under consideration. It is pertinent to mention that this bank account has all cash/credit entries in respect of the sale of petroleum products. Therefore, the amount of Rs.24,88,95,987/- is treated as total sales for the year

INCOME TAX OFFICER, RAIPUR vs. RAHUL KATHURIA, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.151 & 152/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 The Income Tax Officer/Income Tax Officer-3(1) Raipur (C.G.)

loss of Rs.556736/- and intraday profit of Rs.46804/-. thus, in total the assessee has earned only 92600/- on which taxes were also paid. It clearly shows, that the assessee was not benefitted by the alleged price rigging done by Naresh J with an intent to bring his unaccounted income into their books of account without paying taxes." 5.5.11. The appellant

INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. RAHUL KATHURIA, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.151 & 152/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 The Income Tax Officer/Income Tax Officer-3(1) Raipur (C.G.)

loss of Rs.556736/- and intraday profit of Rs.46804/-. thus, in total the assessee has earned only 92600/- on which taxes were also paid. It clearly shows, that the assessee was not benefitted by the alleged price rigging done by Naresh J with an intent to bring his unaccounted income into their books of account without paying taxes." 5.5.11. The appellant

PRADEEP KUMAR AGRAWAL, DHAMTARI,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 158, 159 & 160/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18)

loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year. In the appellant case there was information that the appellant's bank accounts were mainly credited through RTGS and subsequently followed by cash withdrawals, and Pradeep Kumar Agrawal vs ITO, Ward- Dhamtari thus, made high value transaction and accordingly, as per provision of the Income

PRADEEP KUMAR AGRAWAL, DHAMTARI,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 158, 159 & 160/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18)

loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year. In the appellant case there was information that the appellant's bank accounts were mainly credited through RTGS and subsequently followed by cash withdrawals, and Pradeep Kumar Agrawal vs ITO, Ward- Dhamtari thus, made high value transaction and accordingly, as per provision of the Income

PRADEEP KUMAR AGRAWAL, DHAMTARI,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 158, 159 & 160/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18)

loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year. In the appellant case there was information that the appellant's bank accounts were mainly credited through RTGS and subsequently followed by cash withdrawals, and Pradeep Kumar Agrawal vs ITO, Ward- Dhamtari thus, made high value transaction and accordingly, as per provision of the Income

SMT. SUSHILA DEVI JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

loss of the revenue, then on the standalone basis that the Commissioner does not agree with the view taken by him would not render the order passed by him as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue within the meaning of Section 263 of the Act. In other words, the Commissioner cannot invoke the revisional 36 Sanket Jhabak

SMT. TILOTTAMA JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

loss of the revenue, then on the standalone basis that the Commissioner does not agree with the view taken by him would not render the order passed by him as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue within the meaning of Section 263 of the Act. In other words, the Commissioner cannot invoke the revisional 36 Sanket Jhabak

SANJOG JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

loss of the revenue, then on the standalone basis that the Commissioner does not agree with the view taken by him would not render the order passed by him as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue within the meaning of Section 263 of the Act. In other words, the Commissioner cannot invoke the revisional 36 Sanket Jhabak

SMT. PUSHPA JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

loss of the revenue, then on the standalone basis that the Commissioner does not agree with the view taken by him would not render the order passed by him as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue within the meaning of Section 263 of the Act. In other words, the Commissioner cannot invoke the revisional 36 Sanket Jhabak

SANJOG JHABAK L/H OF LATE GAUTAM CHAND JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

loss of the revenue, then on the standalone basis that the Commissioner does not agree with the view taken by him would not render the order passed by him as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue within the meaning of Section 263 of the Act. In other words, the Commissioner cannot invoke the revisional 36 Sanket Jhabak