ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

reassessment order) before the ITAT, Jabalpur. 25.11.2008 The Tribunal vide its consolidated order dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue against the CIT(Appeals) order, dated 31.03.2008, for the reason that as it had failed to obtain clearance from High Powered Committee (COD), therefore, the appeals were not maintainable in law. 21.10.2011 On a miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

reassessment order) before the ITAT, Jabalpur. 25.11.2008 The Tribunal vide its consolidated order dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue against the CIT(Appeals) order, dated 31.03.2008, for the reason that as it had failed to obtain clearance from High Powered Committee (COD), therefore, the appeals were not maintainable in law. 21.10.2011 On a miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

reassessment order) before the ITAT, Jabalpur. 25.11.2008 The Tribunal vide its consolidated order dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue against the CIT(Appeals) order, dated 31.03.2008, for the reason that as it had failed to obtain clearance from High Powered Committee (COD), therefore, the appeals were not maintainable in law. 21.10.2011 On a miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

reassessment order) before the ITAT, Jabalpur. 25.11.2008 The Tribunal vide its consolidated order dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue against the CIT(Appeals) order, dated 31.03.2008, for the reason that as it had failed to obtain clearance from High Powered Committee (COD), therefore, the appeals were not maintainable in law. 21.10.2011 On a miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

reassessment order) before the ITAT, Jabalpur. 25.11.2008 The Tribunal vide its consolidated order dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue against the CIT(Appeals) order, dated 31.03.2008, for the reason that as it had failed to obtain clearance from High Powered Committee (COD), therefore, the appeals were not maintainable in law. 21.10.2011 On a miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

reassessment order) before the ITAT, Jabalpur. 25.11.2008 The Tribunal vide its consolidated order dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue against the CIT(Appeals) order, dated 31.03.2008, for the reason that as it had failed to obtain clearance from High Powered Committee (COD), therefore, the appeals were not maintainable in law. 21.10.2011 On a miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue

ADDL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE -1, BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

reassessment order) before the ITAT, Jabalpur. 25.11.2008 The Tribunal vide its consolidated order dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue against the CIT(Appeals) order, dated 31.03.2008, for the reason that as it had failed to obtain clearance from High Powered Committee (COD), therefore, the appeals were not maintainable in law. 21.10.2011 On a miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue

ADDL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE -1, BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

reassessment order) before the ITAT, Jabalpur. 25.11.2008 The Tribunal vide its consolidated order dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue against the CIT(Appeals) order, dated 31.03.2008, for the reason that as it had failed to obtain clearance from High Powered Committee (COD), therefore, the appeals were not maintainable in law. 21.10.2011 On a miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue

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 )

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA. The Tribunal while quashing the assessment orders had relied upon its earlier decision in Navin Jain and Others (Supra) wherein a detailed discussion has been made with

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 )

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA. The Tribunal while quashing the assessment orders had relied upon its earlier decision in Navin Jain and Others (Supra) wherein a detailed discussion has been made with

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 )

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA. The Tribunal while quashing the assessment orders had relied upon its earlier decision in Navin Jain and Others (Supra) wherein a detailed discussion has been made with

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 )

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA. The Tribunal while quashing the assessment orders had relied upon its earlier decision in Navin Jain and Others (Supra) wherein a detailed discussion has been made with

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 )

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA. The Tribunal while quashing the assessment orders had relied upon its earlier decision in Navin Jain and Others (Supra) wherein a detailed discussion has been made with

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 )

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA. The Tribunal while quashing the assessment orders had relied upon its earlier decision in Navin Jain and Others (Supra) wherein a detailed discussion has been made with

M/S MATA ROAD CARRIERS,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

253(4) has not been filed as per record. 3. As per records, additional ground under rule 29 is added by the assesse for adjudication on 20-7-2022,Paper book withdrawn on 04-11-2022 and submitted fresh paper book. Additional ground-1 was added on 04-11-2022 challenging the jurisdiction of the assessee and was again revised

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, 2, RAIGARH(CG) vs. SHRI SHRI BISHAMBHAR DAYAL AGRAWAL, JASHPUR (C.G.)

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 223/Rpr/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Income Tax Officer-2, Raigarh (C.G.)

reassessed the income of the assessee at Rs.40,44,752/-. 6. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals), finding favor with the contentions of the assessee, vacated the addition made by the A.O u/s. 69 of the Act, observing as under: “Decision — I have considered the rival submission carefully and find that

THE DY. CIT- 1,, DURG(CG) vs. M/S. RAVI SHREE NARAYAN TRANSPORT,, BHILAI(CG)

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act of Rs.61,25,026/- out of interest and finance charges as per provisions of” 3. Whether in law and on facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.32,00,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credit in partners capital account

DY.C.I.T. 1, BHILAI(CG) vs. M/S RAVI SHREE NARAYAN TRANSPORT, BHILAI(CG)

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act of Rs.61,25,026/- out of interest and finance charges as per provisions of” 3. Whether in law and on facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.32,00,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credit in partners capital account