M/S. G.P. INFRAVENTURES ,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(4), RAIPUR

The appeal of the department stands disposed off

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No.76/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), V M/S G.P. Infraventures, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, S Shree Tower, Shankar Nagar, Central Revenue Building, Raipur (C.G.) Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aanfg6074B (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) : (""यथ" / Respondent) (Ita No.94/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S G.P. Infraventures, V Income Tax Officer-1(4), Shree Tower, Shankar Nagar, S Raipur Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aanfg6074B (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of : 23.11.2023 7Pronouncement

108 taxmann.com 24 ITA 76 & 94/RPR/2020 G.P. Infraventures 183. Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "5. At the outset, it must be stated that out of two questions of law that arose for consideration in Hotel Blue Moon's case the first question was whether notice under Section 143(2) would be mandatory for the purpose of making

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), RAIPUR vs. MESERS G P INFRAVENTURES, RAIPUR

The appeal of the department stands disposed off

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No.76/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), V M/S G.P. Infraventures, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, S Shree Tower, Shankar Nagar, Central Revenue Building, Raipur (C.G.) Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aanfg6074B (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) : (""यथ" / Respondent) (Ita No.94/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S G.P. Infraventures, V Income Tax Officer-1(4), Shree Tower, Shankar Nagar, S Raipur Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aanfg6074B (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of : 23.11.2023 7Pronouncement

108 taxmann.com 24 ITA 76 & 94/RPR/2020 G.P. Infraventures 183. Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "5. At the outset, it must be stated that out of two questions of law that arose for consideration in Hotel Blue Moon's case the first question was whether notice under Section 143(2) would be mandatory for the purpose of making

M/S SCC INVESTMENT ,RAIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - I, RAIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

68 discharged. No enquiry whatsoever by the AC) and the onus never shifted back to the assessee. In view of this, no addition could have been made. Reliance on: - 4 i) CIT vs Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) (PN 103 to 108 of PB). ii) CIT vs Metachem Industries

AARTI SPONGE AND POWER LTD.,RAIPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR - 1, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

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

108 (Bom.), PN 104 to 111 of PB, relevant finding on PN 110, para no. 15. - CIT vs Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj.). PN 112 to 116 of PB, relevant finding at PN 1 15, para no. 7. - Colour Publications P. Ltd. vs Pr. CIT (2018) 196 TT.T 257 (Bom.), PN 117 to 127 of PB, relevant finding

M/S. PRACHI AGRICULTURE & PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,RAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-1, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. : 30/Rpr/2021 कर धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017 M/S Prachi Agriculture & Properties Private Limited 18-19, Anupam Nagar, Raipur (Cg) 492 001 Pan : Aabcp 3701 H . . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Nikhilesh Begani Revenue By : Shri P. K. Mishra सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 10/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Jamlappa D Battull, Am; Against The Revisionary Order Of Principal Of Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1 [For Short “Pcit”] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] Vide Order Dt 26/03/2021, For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2016-2017, The Appellant Assessee Filed This Appeal Before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [For Short “The Tribunal”] U/S 253(1) Of The Act.

68, and thereby left no bubbles in the order of assessment. Per contra, the revisionary action and order u/s 263 of the Act, both entirely marshal out of an audit objection communicated by the revenue audit team and in the circumstance of complete material absentia supporting the assumption of revisionary jurisdiction reached the conclusion holding the order of assessment

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)

section 263, the short synopsis submitted before us is extracted hereunder for the sake of clarity: Bharat Benefication & Power Pvt. Ltd., Raigarh AY 2018/19 Submission of assessee 1. Rs. 70 lakh Sky Alloys & Power Pvt. Ltd. i) Impugned assessment reopened on the issue of alleged bogus purchases from two parties. ii) In the reopened assessment, as per the settled

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

108 (Bom). 48. Once again, it would be relevant to point out that though the Pr. CIT in the course of the revisional proceedings, had vide his letter dated 26.06.2024 sought a “fresh opinion” of the CCOST, Raipur pursuant whereto, the latter had vide its letter dated 06.08.2024 filed its “fresh opinion/report”, but a careful perusal of the same does

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

108 (Bom). 48. Once again, it would be relevant to point out that though the Pr. CIT in the course of the revisional proceedings, had vide his letter dated 26.06.2024 sought a “fresh opinion” of the CCOST, Raipur pursuant whereto, the latter had vide its letter dated 06.08.2024 filed its “fresh opinion/report”, but a careful perusal of the same does

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

108 (Bom). 48. Once again, it would be relevant to point out that though the Pr. CIT in the course of the revisional proceedings, had vide his letter dated 26.06.2024 sought a “fresh opinion” of the CCOST, Raipur pursuant whereto, the latter had vide its letter dated 06.08.2024 filed its “fresh opinion/report”, but a careful perusal of the same does

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

108 (Bom). 48. Once again, it would be relevant to point out that though the Pr. CIT in the course of the revisional proceedings, had vide his letter dated 26.06.2024 sought a “fresh opinion” of the CCOST, Raipur pursuant whereto, the latter had vide its letter dated 06.08.2024 filed its “fresh opinion/report”, but a careful perusal of the same does

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

108 (Bom). 48. Once again, it would be relevant to point out that though the Pr. CIT in the course of the revisional proceedings, had vide his letter dated 26.06.2024 sought a “fresh opinion” of the CCOST, Raipur pursuant whereto, the latter had vide its letter dated 06.08.2024 filed its “fresh opinion/report”, but a careful perusal of the same does

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

108 (Bom). 48. Once again, it would be relevant to point out that though the Pr. CIT in the course of the revisional proceedings, had vide his letter dated 26.06.2024 sought a “fresh opinion” of the CCOST, Raipur pursuant whereto, the latter had vide its letter dated 06.08.2024 filed its “fresh opinion/report”, but a careful perusal of the same does

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

108 (Bom). 48. Once again, it would be relevant to point out that though the Pr. CIT in the course of the revisional proceedings, had vide his letter dated 26.06.2024 sought a “fresh opinion” of the CCOST, Raipur pursuant whereto, the latter had vide its letter dated 06.08.2024 filed its “fresh opinion/report”, but a careful perusal of the same does

MARUTI CLEAN COAL AND POWER LTD.,RAIPUR vs. PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 55/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Maruti Clean Coal & Power Ltd. Ward No.42, Building No.14, Civil Lines, Near Income Tax Colony, Chhattisgarh-492 001. Pan : Aadcm4810C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By :Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms. Ananya Kapoor & Ms. Soumya Singh, Advocates. Revenue By :Shri P. K Mishra, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2022

Section 68 of the Act. 7. The assessee being aggrieved with the order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s. 263 of the Act, dated 27.03.2021 has carried the matter in appeal before us. 8. We have heard the Ld. Authorized representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record

MADANLAL LODHA,RAIPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: Ita 32/Rpr/2022 (Assessment Years:2017-18) Madanlal Lodha, V Pr. Commissioner Of Income Ta, C/O M/S Prakash Trading Comp. S Raipur-(I) Shop No. 109 & 110, Textile Market, Pandri, Raipur, (C.G.) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By : Shri R.B. Doshi, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By : Shri S.K. Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 03-08-2023 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20-10-2023

section 68 of the Act and issue 3 regarding compensation of Rs. 71,75,902/- claimed as exemption u/s 96 of the RFCTLARR Act, were queried and compliance/ explanations were sought from the assessee. Necessary response was furnished by the assessee. However, on perusal of the response of the assessee on the queries raised, Ld. PCIT has observed that

DY. C.I.T. 1(2), RAIPUR (CG) vs. M/S HIRA FERRO ALLOYS LTD.,, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed for assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

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

108 (Delhi-ITAT) k. Bio Science P. Ltd. Vs ACIT (2012)51 SOT 16 (Mum-ITAT) l. ACIT Vs Sil Investment Lid (20] 0) 54 SOT 54 (Del. ITAT) m. ACIT Vs Jindal Saw Pipes Ltd. 118 TTHJ 228 (Del-ITAT) n. RIE Agro Ltd. vs DCIT (2013) TS-271-1TAT 2013 (Kol) It was also submitted that

DY. C.I.T. 1(2), RAIPUR (CG) vs. M/S HIRA FERRO ALLOYS LTD.,, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed for assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

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

108 (Delhi-ITAT) k. Bio Science P. Ltd. Vs ACIT (2012)51 SOT 16 (Mum-ITAT) l. ACIT Vs Sil Investment Lid (20] 0) 54 SOT 54 (Del. ITAT) m. ACIT Vs Jindal Saw Pipes Ltd. 118 TTHJ 228 (Del-ITAT) n. RIE Agro Ltd. vs DCIT (2013) TS-271-1TAT 2013 (Kol) It was also submitted that

DY. C.I.T. 1(2), RAIPUR (CG) vs. M/S HIRA FERRO ALLOYS LTD.,, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed for assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

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

108 (Delhi-ITAT) k. Bio Science P. Ltd. Vs ACIT (2012)51 SOT 16 (Mum-ITAT) l. ACIT Vs Sil Investment Lid (20] 0) 54 SOT 54 (Del. ITAT) m. ACIT Vs Jindal Saw Pipes Ltd. 118 TTHJ 228 (Del-ITAT) n. RIE Agro Ltd. vs DCIT (2013) TS-271-1TAT 2013 (Kol) It was also submitted that