DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. MESERS SHREE JAGDAMBA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 37 To 42/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15)

249 ITR 113 2001 Allahabad Commissioner-of Income-tax v. Suresh Kumar Agarwal the Tribunal deleted disallowance made under section 40A(3) holding that assessee's case fell under second proviso to section 40A(3). Honourable High Court held that in view of Supreme Court's observations that terms of section 40A(3) are not absolute, that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. MESERS SHREE JAGDAMBA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 37 To 42/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15)

249 ITR 113 2001 Allahabad Commissioner-of Income-tax v. Suresh Kumar Agarwal the Tribunal deleted disallowance made under section 40A(3) holding that assessee's case fell under second proviso to section 40A(3). Honourable High Court held that in view of Supreme Court's observations that terms of section 40A(3) are not absolute, that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. MESERS SHREE JAGDAMBA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 37 To 42/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15)

249 ITR 113 2001 Allahabad Commissioner-of Income-tax v. Suresh Kumar Agarwal the Tribunal deleted disallowance made under section 40A(3) holding that assessee's case fell under second proviso to section 40A(3). Honourable High Court held that in view of Supreme Court's observations that terms of section 40A(3) are not absolute, that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. MESERS SHREE JAGDAMBA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 37 To 42/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15)

249 ITR 113 2001 Allahabad Commissioner-of Income-tax v. Suresh Kumar Agarwal the Tribunal deleted disallowance made under section 40A(3) holding that assessee's case fell under second proviso to section 40A(3). Honourable High Court held that in view of Supreme Court's observations that terms of section 40A(3) are not absolute, that

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION)-1, RAIPUR vs. SHRI CHAITANY MAHAPRABHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHAN, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 235/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer, (Exemption)-1, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Chaitany Mahaprabhu Shikshan Sansthan 2, Jindal Niwas, Ramsagarpara, Raipur(C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aaits4845F ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal & Smt. Laxmi Sharma, Cas Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2022

68 of the Act by the A.O. Accordingly, the CIT(A) on the basis of his aforesaid observations vacated the addition of Rs. 2,33,52,000/- that was made by the A.O under Sec.68 of the Act. 6. The revenue being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before

VEER PROJECTS,RAIPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 654/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

68 of the Act and taxable at special Rate u/s 115BBE 1. Unsecured Loan 2,63,43,671 1. Sundry Creditors 2,56,47,012 Total assessed Income Rs.6,70,06,800 4. Aggrieved with the aforesaid additions, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), however, the appeal of assessee has been dismissed in limine, without any adjudication

RAJENDRA KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA, DURG,DURG vs. ITO, NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.744/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2020-21 Rajendra Kumar Shrivastava, Mig-42, Padmanabhpur, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan: Alops3921M

68 dated 17/11/1971. My application will be accepted rupees 7,69,000/- be deleted.” 2. At the time of hearing, none appeared for the assessee and no adjournment petition has been filed. The matter was heard after recording the submissions of the Ld. Sr. DR and on a careful perusal of the materials/documents available on record. 3. In this case

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX01(2), RAIPUR (CG) vs. M/S ISHWAR ISPAT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD,, RAIPUR (CG)

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

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-2010

68 Units 55 litres December, 2008 69 units 53 litres March 2009 63 units 52 litres 5 Assessment Year : 2009-2010 It was further submitted that the so called fluctuation is normal and within reasonable limit and there is nothing abnormal about it. The power consumption in assessment year 2007-08 has varied between 102 to 191 while in assessment

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. SHREE SHYAM SPONGE & POWER P.LTD, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

249 Shree 2006-07 18.07.14 27.03.14 153A r.w.s. /RPR/14 Shyam to 2012- 143(3) of the a/w. CO Sponge And 13 Income Tax Nos. 18 to Power Pvt. Act, 1961 (in 24/RPR/2015 Ltd. short ‘the Act’) 2. The issues being common, interlinked and similar, all the captioned Revenue’s appeals in respect of the captioned assessee have been heard together

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. SHREE SHYAM SPONGE & POWER P.LTD, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

249 Shree 2006-07 18.07.14 27.03.14 153A r.w.s. /RPR/14 Shyam to 2012- 143(3) of the a/w. CO Sponge And 13 Income Tax Nos. 18 to Power Pvt. Act, 1961 (in 24/RPR/2015 Ltd. short ‘the Act’) 2. The issues being common, interlinked and similar, all the captioned Revenue’s appeals in respect of the captioned assessee have been heard together

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. SHREE SHYAM SPONGE & POWER P.LTD, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

249 Shree 2006-07 18.07.14 27.03.14 153A r.w.s. /RPR/14 Shyam to 2012- 143(3) of the a/w. CO Sponge And 13 Income Tax Nos. 18 to Power Pvt. Act, 1961 (in 24/RPR/2015 Ltd. short ‘the Act’) 2. The issues being common, interlinked and similar, all the captioned Revenue’s appeals in respect of the captioned assessee have been heard together

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. SHREE SHYAM SPONGE & POWER P.LTD, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

249 Shree 2006-07 18.07.14 27.03.14 153A r.w.s. /RPR/14 Shyam to 2012- 143(3) of the a/w. CO Sponge And 13 Income Tax Nos. 18 to Power Pvt. Act, 1961 (in 24/RPR/2015 Ltd. short ‘the Act’) 2. The issues being common, interlinked and similar, all the captioned Revenue’s appeals in respect of the captioned assessee have been heard together

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. SHREE SHYAM SPONGE & POWER P.LTD, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

249 Shree 2006-07 18.07.14 27.03.14 153A r.w.s. /RPR/14 Shyam to 2012- 143(3) of the a/w. CO Sponge And 13 Income Tax Nos. 18 to Power Pvt. Act, 1961 (in 24/RPR/2015 Ltd. short ‘the Act’) 2. The issues being common, interlinked and similar, all the captioned Revenue’s appeals in respect of the captioned assessee have been heard together

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

THE DY. CIT- CIR.-1(1),, BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFILDS LTD.,, 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

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD,BILASPUR(CG) vs. DY.. C.I.T.-1(1), 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

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

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