THE CHHATTISGARH STATE POWER GENERATION COMPANY LIMITED, RAIPUR,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(2),RAIPUR, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.16/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. O/O. Executive Director-Finance Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.24/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

68,556/- under the head "Profits & gains of business or profession" in spite of the fact that said income was already offered for taxation under the head "Income from other sources" while filing revised return of income for the year under consideration. 5). On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, CIT(A) erred in confirming action

SURENDRA KUMAR DAGA,RAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD - 36(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2013-14

150/- made in the land property but the source was not explained by the assessee. Not satisfied with the defence of the assessee to the show cause notice, the impugned assessment order for the A.Y. 2013-14 was set aside with a direction to the A.O. to make necessary investigation on loans against the investments in the land made

SUN AND SUN INFRAMETRIC PVT. LTD.,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.21/Rpr/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16)

2. As per its grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged the revisional action of the PCIT whereby the Assessing Officer was directed to pass the assessment order de novo after making enquiries Sun & Sun Inframetric Pvt Ltd Vs. ACIT AY : 2015-2016 on the points set out in the notice which has already examined and considered during the original

SHRI SHAKTIDHAM INFRAVENTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,BILASPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , BILASPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 71/Rpr/2020) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16)

150/- in this company only and he has no other asset. 13 Tarachand Kashyap 366000 Cash deposit of Rs. 2,80,000/- and transfer amount of Rs. 85,259/- on 05.01.2015, and 20.01.2015 respectively. The bank account shows no other significant transactions. Further returned income is only Rs. 2,68, 300/- and as per balance sheet he has made investment

AFTAB SIDDIQUE, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DCIT-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 633/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19) Aftab Siddique, Near Sunni Maszid, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Nayapara, Tatyapara, Raipur, Tax, Circle-1(1), Aaykar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Pan: Ajgps3624K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None (Petition Filed) राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 09/02/2026 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 11.08.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). 2. The appellant assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: - “1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing appeal without considering adjournment application filed by appellant. Resultantly, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is illegal and unsustainable. 1 Aftab Siddique vs. DCIT-1(1), Raipur 2

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. M/S R.R.ENERGY LTD.,, RAIGARH(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

section 133(6) which have been returned un-served in some of the cases. I have carefully perused the explanation submitted by the appellant in respect of cases where the notices remained unserved, the submissions of the appellant are found to be convincing. It is further observed that no further enquiry or investigation has been conducted

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. M/S R.R.ENERGY LTD.,, RAIGARH(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

section 133(6) which have been returned un-served in some of the cases. I have carefully perused the explanation submitted by the appellant in respect of cases where the notices remained unserved, the submissions of the appellant are found to be convincing. It is further observed that no further enquiry or investigation has been conducted

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. M/S R.R.ENERGY LTD.,, RAIGARH(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

section 133(6) which have been returned un-served in some of the cases. I have carefully perused the explanation submitted by the appellant in respect of cases where the notices remained unserved, the submissions of the appellant are found to be convincing. It is further observed that no further enquiry or investigation has been conducted

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. M/S R.R.ENERGY LTD.,, RAIGARH(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

section 133(6) which have been returned un-served in some of the cases. I have carefully perused the explanation submitted by the appellant in respect of cases where the notices remained unserved, the submissions of the appellant are found to be convincing. It is further observed that no further enquiry or investigation has been conducted

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. M/S R.R.ENERGY LTD.,, RAIGARH(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

section 133(6) which have been returned un-served in some of the cases. I have carefully perused the explanation submitted by the appellant in respect of cases where the notices remained unserved, the submissions of the appellant are found to be convincing. It is further observed that no further enquiry or investigation has been conducted

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. M/S R.R.ENERGY LTD.,, RAIGARH(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

section 133(6) which have been returned un-served in some of the cases. I have carefully perused the explanation submitted by the appellant in respect of cases where the notices remained unserved, the submissions of the appellant are found to be convincing. It is further observed that no further enquiry or investigation has been conducted

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. M/S R.R.ENERGY LTD.,, RAIGARH(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

section 133(6) which have been returned un-served in some of the cases. I have carefully perused the explanation submitted by the appellant in respect of cases where the notices remained unserved, the submissions of the appellant are found to be convincing. It is further observed that no further enquiry or investigation has been conducted

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1),, RAIPUR vs. SHRI. JAVED ALI PRADHAN,, RAIPUR

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member

150/- The assessee explained that the jottings and rough working noted in the aforementioned seized material, was explained as related to the real estate dealings of the investors arranged through the assessee and his associates who were also engaged in deriving income from 3 ITA Nos.126-132/BLPR/2011 commission in real estate dealings. The assessee was confronted with the entries

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1),, RAIPUR vs. SHRI. JAVED ALI PRADHAN,, RAIPUR

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member

150/- The assessee explained that the jottings and rough working noted in the aforementioned seized material, was explained as related to the real estate dealings of the investors arranged through the assessee and his associates who were also engaged in deriving income from 3 ITA Nos.126-132/BLPR/2011 commission in real estate dealings. The assessee was confronted with the entries

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1),, RAIPUR vs. SHRI. JAVED ALI PRADHAN,, RAIPUR

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member

150/- The assessee explained that the jottings and rough working noted in the aforementioned seized material, was explained as related to the real estate dealings of the investors arranged through the assessee and his associates who were also engaged in deriving income from 3 ITA Nos.126-132/BLPR/2011 commission in real estate dealings. The assessee was confronted with the entries

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1),, RAIPUR vs. SHRI. JAVED ALI PRADHAN,, RAIPUR

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member

150/- The assessee explained that the jottings and rough working noted in the aforementioned seized material, was explained as related to the real estate dealings of the investors arranged through the assessee and his associates who were also engaged in deriving income from 3 ITA Nos.126-132/BLPR/2011 commission in real estate dealings. The assessee was confronted with the entries

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1),, RAIPUR vs. SHRI. JAVED ALI PRADHAN,, RAIPUR

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member

150/- The assessee explained that the jottings and rough working noted in the aforementioned seized material, was explained as related to the real estate dealings of the investors arranged through the assessee and his associates who were also engaged in deriving income from 3 ITA Nos.126-132/BLPR/2011 commission in real estate dealings. The assessee was confronted with the entries

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1),, RAIPUR vs. SHRI. JAVED ALI PRADHAN,, RAIPUR

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member

150/- The assessee explained that the jottings and rough working noted in the aforementioned seized material, was explained as related to the real estate dealings of the investors arranged through the assessee and his associates who were also engaged in deriving income from 3 ITA Nos.126-132/BLPR/2011 commission in real estate dealings. The assessee was confronted with the entries