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

147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 30.05.2023 with direction to revise the reassessment order by disallowing the claim of deduction put forth u/s.54B of the Act and to consequently initiate penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on the specified issue by erroneously concluding that the essential conditions specified under the provisions of section 54B are not satisfied

SANKET 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

147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 30.05.2023 with direction to revise the reassessment order by disallowing the claim of deduction put forth u/s.54B of the Act and to consequently initiate penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on the specified issue by erroneously concluding that the essential conditions specified under the provisions of section 54B are not satisfied

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

147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 30.05.2023 with direction to revise the reassessment order by disallowing the claim of deduction put forth u/s.54B of the Act and to consequently initiate penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on the specified issue by erroneously concluding that the essential conditions specified under the provisions of section 54B are not satisfied

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

147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 30.05.2023 with direction to revise the reassessment order by disallowing the claim of deduction put forth u/s.54B of the Act and to consequently initiate penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on the specified issue by erroneously concluding that the essential conditions specified under the provisions of section 54B are not satisfied

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

147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 30.05.2023 with direction to revise the reassessment order by disallowing the claim of deduction put forth u/s.54B of the Act and to consequently initiate penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on the specified issue by erroneously concluding that the essential conditions specified under the provisions of section 54B are not satisfied

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), RAIPUR vs. MESERSS T.C. BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR

In the result CO filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assistant Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Tc Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 1(1) Vasudev, B-5, Sector-5, Raipur, (C.G.) Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aacct4516F Cross Objection No. 26/Rpr/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 173/Rpr/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Tc Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 1(1) Vasudev, B-5, Sector-5, Raipur, (C.G.) Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aacct4516F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 16-08-2023 घोषणाक" तार"ख/Date : 27-10-2023 Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am:

reassessment and nothing more and thus he read not stated how he had come to reason to believe that income has escaped that assessment, such notice lacked validity”. 11 I.T.A. No.173/RPR/2019 CO No. 26/RPR/2019 4. CIT vs Orient Craft Ltd (2013) 354 ITR 536 (Del HC). In this judgment Hon’ble Delhi HC has held that: “In absence

DCIT-1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI vs. VIJAYA DESHLAHRA, INDORE

In the result, ITA No. 92/RPR/2025 & C

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpia

Capital Gain and Losses. No prudent businessman and particularly a trader or investor in stock will invest in share of such a company which is virtually defunct and inoperative.” 9. That, in response to the proposed variation in the draft assessment order, the assessee had filed reply which is extracted as follows:- “1. All details related to LTCG which

DCIT-1(1), BHILAI vs. VIJAYA DESHLAHRA, INDORE

In the result, ITA No. 92/RPR/2025 & C

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpia

Capital Gain and Losses. No prudent businessman and particularly a trader or investor in stock will invest in share of such a company which is virtually defunct and inoperative.” 9. That, in response to the proposed variation in the draft assessment order, the assessee had filed reply which is extracted as follows:- “1. All details related to LTCG which

DCIT-1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI vs. VIJAYA DESHLAHRA, INDORE

In the result, ITA No. 92/RPR/2025 & C

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpia

Capital Gain and Losses. No prudent businessman and particularly a trader or investor in stock will invest in share of such a company which is virtually defunct and inoperative.” 9. That, in response to the proposed variation in the draft assessment order, the assessee had filed reply which is extracted as follows:- “1. All details related to LTCG which

RAHUL BAJPAI,IDGAH CHOWK vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), SHRI RAM PLAZA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.348/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Rahul Bajpai Idgah Chowk, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh-495 001 Pan: Aexpb4410L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

gain a better understanding of the matter. "Later, in response to the notice u/s 148 dL6/6/2018 ITR was filed on 17/6/2018 declaring total income of Rs.38,25,590/- with a specific request in writing for supply of reasons for re- opening of the assessment of the case and also for supply of justification given by the competent authority. This request

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

capital gain on sale of shares and claimed to be exempt u/s 10(38) of IT Act. Furthermore the Appellant had raised her objection before the Id. AO on 13/01/2020 and informed him that the impugned transaction was being shown as exempt income under schedule El serial no. 3 of ITR. However the Id. AO does not deal with

LAKHICHAND SIDARA,BILASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), BILASPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.180/Rpr/2017 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-2010) Lakhi Chand Sidara, Vs Ito-1(2), Bilaspur Main Road Torwa, Bilaspur (C.G.) Pan No. : Adkps 8800 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

reassessment proceedings started against the assessee u/s 147 are bad in law and also that under provision of clause 2 of Section 50C the value adopted or assessed (or assessable) by the Stamp Valuation Authority under sub section (1) exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer, thus, should be referred to a valuation

ANISH VISHNOI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.764/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Anish Vishnoi New Bus Stand Baloda Bazar, Baloda Bazar S.O., Raipur (C.G.)-493 332 Pan: Aeapv0087J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B by the Ld. Assessing Officer without following the mandatory faceless assessment procedure, rendering the assessment void ab initio. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO in arbitrarily rejecting the objection raised by the Appellant against the draft

RANJEET SINGH SAINI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of over aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 58/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

147 r.w.s. 144B may kindly be held to be illegal, bad-in-law and consequential enhancement of Rs.1,14,88,500/- made to the total income may kindly be directed to be deleted. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the reassessment proceedings are illegal, bad-in-law and void-ab-initio inasmuch as the reassessment proceedings were

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(3), BHILAI, BHILAI vs. RAMANDEEP SINGH SOHI, DURG

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.268/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 The Income Tax Officer-1(3), Bhilai (C.G.)

147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act on 30-03-2022 by making additions viz. (i) addition on 5 ITO-1(3), Bhilai Vs. Ramandeep Singh Sohi account of bogus LTCG u/s.69A of the Act : Rs.26,41,000/-; and (ii) addition u/s.69C of the Act for commission paid for accommodation entry: Rs.1,32,500/- and determining total income

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.)

u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B on 27.03.2023. The same is impugned here and hence this appeal order. 5.5. The grounds no. 1, 2 and 3 of the appeal are with respect to the addition of Rs.2,04,23,038/- which is the crux of the dispute also; are taken up together as under: “1. The Assessing Officer erred in making addition

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.)

u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B on 27.03.2023. The same is impugned here and hence this appeal order. 5.5. The grounds no. 1, 2 and 3 of the appeal are with respect to the addition of Rs.2,04,23,038/- which is the crux of the dispute also; are taken up together as under: “1. The Assessing Officer erred in making addition

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER -1, RAIGARH, RAIGARH(CG) vs. SHRI SHRI PARMANAND GUPTA, RAIGARH, RAIGARH(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 82/Rpr/2017 Co. No. 02/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 The Income Tax Officer-1, Raigarh (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Parmanand Gupta, Alochan Agrawal, L/H. Of Late Shri Parmanand Gupta, Prop. M/S. Balaji Handloom, 19/48, Palace Road, Raigarh (C.G.) Pan : Afdpg4961L ……""यथ" / Respondent

capital gains on account of sale/purchase of shares by obtaining entries. After deliberating on the facts, it was inter alia observed by the Hon’ble High Court that a mere reference to the information received from the Dy. Director of IT (Inv.) cannot constitute valid reasons for initiating reassessment proceedings in the absence of anything to show that