RAIPUR REALTY PVT LTD, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3 (1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.241/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Raipur Realty Pvt. Ltd. E-76, G.K. Chambers, Sector-2, Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aahcr0621C ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

exemption u/s.10(37) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) read with Section 96 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Reassessment

MADHU GOYAL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.496/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Madhu Goyal D-36, Wallfort City, Bhatagaon, Raipur-492 001 (C.G) Pan: Aeypg1038E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

reassessment proceedings since there is escapement of income. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee countering the afore-stated contention submitted that the return of income does not have any provision to directly reflect the amount which has been received by the assessee i.e. 9,27,878/-. The provision of exempt

BALAJI EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY, BHILAI,BHILAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, WARD-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.594/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17

reassessment is quashed thereafter all other proceedings becomes non-est in the eyes of law. As the legal issue has been answered in favour of the assessee therefore the grounds on merits becomes academic only. 15. As per the aforesaid terms the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee stands allowed. 6 Balaji Education Development Society Vs. The ITO (Exemption

PAWAN KUMAR CHANDRAKAR, DHAMTARI,DHAMTARI vs. ITO, WARD-DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 685, 686 & 687/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16) Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward Dhamtari, Gandhi Chowk, Kurud, Shankardan Road, Village:Haraftarai, Dhamtari-493663, Chhattisgarh. Dhamtari-493773, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aqdpc2033J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Veekas S Sharma, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 12/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

reassessment proceedings under Section 147 based on non-existent fact and factually incorrect premise is, therefore, bad-in-law and the consequent addition is unsustainable. 7. The Learned CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.13,973/- as interest income under the head "Income from Other Sources," despite the fact that the said amount falls below

PAWAN KUMAR CHANDRAKAR, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI vs. ITO,WARD-DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 685, 686 & 687/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16) Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward Dhamtari, Gandhi Chowk, Kurud, Shankardan Road, Village:Haraftarai, Dhamtari-493663, Chhattisgarh. Dhamtari-493773, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aqdpc2033J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Veekas S Sharma, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 12/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

reassessment proceedings under Section 147 based on non-existent fact and factually incorrect premise is, therefore, bad-in-law and the consequent addition is unsustainable. 7. The Learned CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.13,973/- as interest income under the head "Income from Other Sources," despite the fact that the said amount falls below

PAWAN KUMAR CHANDRAKAR, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI vs. ITO, WARD-DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 685, 686 & 687/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16) Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward Dhamtari, Gandhi Chowk, Kurud, Shankardan Road, Village:Haraftarai, Dhamtari-493663, Chhattisgarh. Dhamtari-493773, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aqdpc2033J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Veekas S Sharma, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 12/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

reassessment proceedings under Section 147 based on non-existent fact and factually incorrect premise is, therefore, bad-in-law and the consequent addition is unsustainable. 7. The Learned CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.13,973/- as interest income under the head "Income from Other Sources," despite the fact that the said amount falls below

INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIVIL LINES, RAIPUR vs. SANDEEP JHABAK, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.418/Rpr/2024 Co No.16/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Sandeep Jhabak M/S. Allied Traders, Jhabak Bada, Near Tatyapara, Kamasipara (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Adnpj2221L ……""यथ" / Respondent

exemption is connected with the user of land for a purpose which must be agriculture?" 7. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case Id. CIT(A) was justified in not calling the remand report from AO on the written submission of assessee, as the assessee has not submitted this reply of the SCN dated 14.12.2019 issued

BHARAT BENEFICATION & POWER PVT. LTD., RAIGARH,RAIGARH vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 336/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

reassessment proceedings, AO raised specific query vide letter dated 25.08.2022 (PN 12 to 17 of PB), query no. 4. AO required assessee to fulfill sec. 68. ii) Reply submitted by assessee, placed at PN 25 to 27 of PB, relevant reply at PN 26, para no.4. All documents in terms of sec. 68 filed. Onus discharged by assessee. iii) Documents

SRI SAI BABA SANSTHAN, BHILAI,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.247 & 248/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 Sri Sai Baba Sansthan Sai Mandir, Avenue-B, Civic Center, Sector-6, Bhilai-490 006 (C.G.) Pan: Aadts8938G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Exemption-Ii, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

Exemption-II, Raipur ITA Nos.247 & 248/RPR/2025 12. There may even be a situation where the Ld. Counsel for the assessee may assail a legal ground before the Tribunal following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) with a contention that irrespective

SRI SAI BABA SANSTHAN, BHILAI,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.247 & 248/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 Sri Sai Baba Sansthan Sai Mandir, Avenue-B, Civic Center, Sector-6, Bhilai-490 006 (C.G.) Pan: Aadts8938G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Exemption-Ii, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

Exemption-II, Raipur ITA Nos.247 & 248/RPR/2025 12. There may even be a situation where the Ld. Counsel for the assessee may assail a legal ground before the Tribunal following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) with a contention that irrespective

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

Exemption) & Ors. Vs. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (supra) as has been relied on by the Ld. Sr. DR is clearly focused on the parameter of compliance. However, in the present case as demonstrated in the record, it is not that of compliance and rather, it is ambiguity in issuance of notice and denying an opportunity to the assessee

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

Exemption) & Ors. Vs. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (supra) as has been relied on by the Ld. Sr. DR is clearly focused on the parameter of compliance. However, in the present case as demonstrated in the record, it is not that of compliance and rather, it is ambiguity in issuance of notice and denying an opportunity to the assessee

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

reassessment proceedings vide notice issued u/s.142(1) of the Act, dated 23.03.2023, inter alia, called upon the assessee to substantiate based on supporting evidence that the subject land sold was used for agricultural purpose in the preceding two years, which, thus, entitled him for raising a claim of deduction u/s.54B of the Act. For the sake of clarity, the notice

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

reassessment proceedings vide notice issued u/s.142(1) of the Act, dated 23.03.2023, inter alia, called upon the assessee to substantiate based on supporting evidence that the subject land sold was used for agricultural purpose in the preceding two years, which, thus, entitled him for raising a claim of deduction u/s.54B of the Act. For the sake of clarity, the notice

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

reassessment proceedings vide notice issued u/s.142(1) of the Act, dated 23.03.2023, inter alia, called upon the assessee to substantiate based on supporting evidence that the subject land sold was used for agricultural purpose in the preceding two years, which, thus, entitled him for raising a claim of deduction u/s.54B of the Act. For the sake of clarity, the notice

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

reassessment proceedings vide notice issued u/s.142(1) of the Act, dated 23.03.2023, inter alia, called upon the assessee to substantiate based on supporting evidence that the subject land sold was used for agricultural purpose in the preceding two years, which, thus, entitled him for raising a claim of deduction u/s.54B of the Act. For the sake of clarity, the notice

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

reassessment proceedings vide notice issued u/s.142(1) of the Act, dated 23.03.2023, inter alia, called upon the assessee to substantiate based on supporting evidence that the subject land sold was used for agricultural purpose in the preceding two years, which, thus, entitled him for raising a claim of deduction u/s.54B of the Act. For the sake of clarity, the notice

SAMPAT LAL JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-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

reassessment proceedings vide notice issued u/s.142(1) of the Act, dated 23.03.2023, inter alia, called upon the assessee to substantiate based on supporting evidence that the subject land sold was used for agricultural purpose in the preceding two years, which, thus, entitled him for raising a claim of deduction u/s.54B of the Act. For the sake of clarity, the notice