SHRI SHRI NITESHKUMAR GOYAL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4),RAIPUR, RAIPUR (CG)

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 36/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Nitesh Kumar Goyal Prop. Com Con India Net Work Solution Shop No.327 Lal Ganga, Shopping Mall, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aigpg6386B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Ward-4(4), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prafulla Pandse, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :15.03.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.03.2022

section 68 that the burden is on the assessee to offer a satisfactory explanation about the nature and source lekhan Md. Hanif v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 669, 673, 674 (MP) affirmed (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) CIT v. Krishna Mining Co., (1972) 83 ITR 860 (AP). 9 Shri Niteshkumar Goyal Vs. ITO Observing the of the amount found

SHRI SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR JHA,BHILAI(CG) vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI(CG)

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

section 68 are also set aside. [Para 27] iii) ITO vs Zexus Air Services P. Ltd. (2021) 189 ITD 434 (Del.), PN 21 to 34 of PB, relevant finding on PN 30, para no. 11 & 12, held as under : 11. We find some force in the above argument of the learned counsel for the assessee. As mentioned

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

68, the alleged addition is unjustified and is liable to be deleted. 4. In the course of appellate proceedings before us, Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted an application for raising additional grounds of appeal, which in view of settled principle of law as laid down by Hon’ble 4 ITA 76 & 94/RPR/2020 G.P. Infraventures Apex Court

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

68, the alleged addition is unjustified and is liable to be deleted. 4. In the course of appellate proceedings before us, Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted an application for raising additional grounds of appeal, which in view of settled principle of law as laid down by Hon’ble 4 ITA 76 & 94/RPR/2020 G.P. Infraventures Apex Court

JHUMUKLAL PANIGRAHI, BASTAR,BASTAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-JAGDALPUR, BASTAR

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our observations above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.92/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Jhumuklal Panigrahi Prop. M/S. Jhumuklal Panigrahi & Sons, Ward No.9, Bhahmanpara, Main Road, Karitgaon, Dist. Bastar (C.G.)-494 221 Pan : Bjnpp2195L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Jagdalpur, Dist. Baster (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

221 PAN : BJNPP2195L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Jagdalpur, Dist. Baster (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : Shri R.B Doshi, CA Revenue by : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 10.10.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date of Pronouncement : 11.10.2023 2 Jhumuklal Panigrahi Vs. ITO, Ward-Jagdalpur, Baster आदेश / ORDER PER RAVISH

SHRI SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR AGRAWAL, KORBA,KORBA(CG) vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,RANGE KORBA, KORBA(CG)

In the result, appeal of the assesee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 93 & 94/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Prop. Of M/S. Shrikishan & Co., T.P Nagar, Korba (C.G.) Pan : Acgpa4350B .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

section 14A, as it was added back in the income of the assessee in preceding Assessment Year i.e. 2010-11.” 52. At the very outset of the hearing of the appeal the Ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘AR’) for the assessee submitted that he was not pressing the ground of appeal No.1. In view of the concession

SHRI SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR AGRAWAL, KORBA,KORBA(CG) vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,RANGE KORBA, KORBA(CG)

In the result, appeal of the assesee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 93 & 94/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Prop. Of M/S. Shrikishan & Co., T.P Nagar, Korba (C.G.) Pan : Acgpa4350B .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

section 14A, as it was added back in the income of the assessee in preceding Assessment Year i.e. 2010-11.” 52. At the very outset of the hearing of the appeal the Ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘AR’) for the assessee submitted that he was not pressing the ground of appeal No.1. In view of the concession

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-RANGE-1,, BILASPUR vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED,, BILASPUR

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury,Jm Sl.

221 ITR 861 (Guj.)] Accordingly, the AO has jurisdiction for rectifying the interest paid/payable on refund u/s. 154 of the I.T. Act and therefore, whatever the interest u/s.244A of the Act due to the assessee u/s.143(1) of the Act ought to be reduced from the interest on refund granted to the assessee company after determination of income

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

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury,Jm Sl.

221 ITR 861 (Guj.)] Accordingly, the AO has jurisdiction for rectifying the interest paid/payable on refund u/s. 154 of the I.T. Act and therefore, whatever the interest u/s.244A of the Act due to the assessee u/s.143(1) of the Act ought to be reduced from the interest on refund granted to the assessee company after determination of income

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

221 of APB. As the A.O had sought to dislodge the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s. 54B of the Act, i.e. allegedly for the reason that the subject land, inter alia, based on the manual report of the Village patwari, dated 03.09.2019 (supra) was in the two years immediately preceding the date on which it was transferred not used

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

221 of APB. As the A.O had sought to dislodge the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s. 54B of the Act, i.e. allegedly for the reason that the subject land, inter alia, based on the manual report of the Village patwari, dated 03.09.2019 (supra) was in the two years immediately preceding the date on which it was transferred not used

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

221 of APB. As the A.O had sought to dislodge the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s. 54B of the Act, i.e. allegedly for the reason that the subject land, inter alia, based on the manual report of the Village patwari, dated 03.09.2019 (supra) was in the two years immediately preceding the date on which it was transferred not used

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

221 of APB. As the A.O had sought to dislodge the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s. 54B of the Act, i.e. allegedly for the reason that the subject land, inter alia, based on the manual report of the Village patwari, dated 03.09.2019 (supra) was in the two years immediately preceding the date on which it was transferred not used

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

221 of APB. As the A.O had sought to dislodge the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s. 54B of the Act, i.e. allegedly for the reason that the subject land, inter alia, based on the manual report of the Village patwari, dated 03.09.2019 (supra) was in the two years immediately preceding the date on which it was transferred not used

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

221 of APB. As the A.O had sought to dislodge the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s. 54B of the Act, i.e. allegedly for the reason that the subject land, inter alia, based on the manual report of the Village patwari, dated 03.09.2019 (supra) was in the two years immediately preceding the date on which it was transferred not used

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

221 of APB. As the A.O had sought to dislodge the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s. 54B of the Act, i.e. allegedly for the reason that the subject land, inter alia, based on the manual report of the Village patwari, dated 03.09.2019 (supra) was in the two years immediately preceding the date on which it was transferred not used

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 1(1)BILASPUR, BILASPUR(CG) vs. THE SOUTH EASTERN COAL FIELDS LTD., BILASPUR, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

section 5, when it is received or deemed to be received by a person. All income for the purpose of charge of income-tax and computation of total income is required to be classified under distinct heads of income such as salaries, income from house property, profits and gains of business or profession, capital gains and income from other

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

section 5, when it is received or deemed to be received by a person. All income for the purpose of charge of income-tax and computation of total income is required to be classified under distinct heads of income such as salaries, income from house property, profits and gains of business or profession, capital gains and income from other

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

section 5, when it is received or deemed to be received by a person. All income for the purpose of charge of income-tax and computation of total income is required to be classified under distinct heads of income such as salaries, income from house property, profits and gains of business or profession, capital gains and income from other