DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR vs. SHANTA TECHNO PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 155/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

292 CTR 354 (SC) is squarely applicable to the facts of the case of the assessee, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and confirmed the findings of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in respect of bogus purchases, where the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, after analysing necessary facts of the case, held

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), RAIPUR vs. PSA CONSTRUCTION, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

68,62,03,653/- 5. Net profit (a> 8% 1,53,84,842/- 2,36,61,456/- 5,48,96,292/- 6. 1,99,656/- Add: Interest on IT - - Refund 7. 1,10,27,495/- 1,78,16,666/- 3,16,24,345/- Less: Depreciation 8. 45,57,003/- 58,44,790/- 2,32,71,927/- Profit after Depreciation

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

292 (Bom). Accordingly, in terms of the aforesaid settled position of law, if the A.O after carrying out necessary inquiry and verification had adopted one of the plausible view amongst other, resulting in the loss of the revenue, then on the standalone basis that the Commissioner does not agree with the view taken by him would not render the order

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

292 (Bom). Accordingly, in terms of the aforesaid settled position of law, if the A.O after carrying out necessary inquiry and verification had adopted one of the plausible view amongst other, resulting in the loss of the revenue, then on the standalone basis that the Commissioner does not agree with the view taken by him would not render the order

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

292 (Bom). Accordingly, in terms of the aforesaid settled position of law, if the A.O after carrying out necessary inquiry and verification had adopted one of the plausible view amongst other, resulting in the loss of the revenue, then on the standalone basis that the Commissioner does not agree with the view taken by him would not render the order

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

292 (Bom). Accordingly, in terms of the aforesaid settled position of law, if the A.O after carrying out necessary inquiry and verification had adopted one of the plausible view amongst other, resulting in the loss of the revenue, then on the standalone basis that the Commissioner does not agree with the view taken by him would not render the order

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

292 (Bom). Accordingly, in terms of the aforesaid settled position of law, if the A.O after carrying out necessary inquiry and verification had adopted one of the plausible view amongst other, resulting in the loss of the revenue, then on the standalone basis that the Commissioner does not agree with the view taken by him would not render the order

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

292 (Bom). Accordingly, in terms of the aforesaid settled position of law, if the A.O after carrying out necessary inquiry and verification had adopted one of the plausible view amongst other, resulting in the loss of the revenue, then on the standalone basis that the Commissioner does not agree with the view taken by him would not render the order

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

292 (Bom). Accordingly, in terms of the aforesaid settled position of law, if the A.O after carrying out necessary inquiry and verification had adopted one of the plausible view amongst other, resulting in the loss of the revenue, then on the standalone basis that the Commissioner does not agree with the view taken by him would not render the order

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

292 ITR 1 (SC) had approved the order of the Tribunal that had deleted the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) imposed by 28 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) the A.O and had, inter alia, observed, that the failure of the AO to strike-off the irrelevant default in the notice issued under

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

292 ITR 1 (SC) had approved the order of the Tribunal that had deleted the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) imposed by 28 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) the A.O and had, inter alia, observed, that the failure of the AO to strike-off the irrelevant default in the notice issued under

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

292 ITR 1 (SC) had approved the order of the Tribunal that had deleted the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) imposed by 28 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) the A.O and had, inter alia, observed, that the failure of the AO to strike-off the irrelevant default in the notice issued under

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

292 ITR 1 (SC) had approved the order of the Tribunal that had deleted the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) imposed by 28 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) the A.O and had, inter alia, observed, that the failure of the AO to strike-off the irrelevant default in the notice issued under

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

292 ITR 1 (SC) had approved the order of the Tribunal that had deleted the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) imposed by 28 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) the A.O and had, inter alia, observed, that the failure of the AO to strike-off the irrelevant default in the notice issued under

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

292 ITR 1 (SC) had approved the order of the Tribunal that had deleted the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) imposed by 28 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) the A.O and had, inter alia, observed, that the failure of the AO to strike-off the irrelevant default in the notice issued under

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

292 ITR 1 (SC) had approved the order of the Tribunal that had deleted the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) imposed by 28 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) the A.O and had, inter alia, observed, that the failure of the AO to strike-off the irrelevant default in the notice issued under

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

292 ITR 1 (SC) had approved the order of the Tribunal that had deleted the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) imposed by 28 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) the A.O and had, inter alia, observed, that the failure of the AO to strike-off the irrelevant default in the notice issued under

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

292 ITR 1 (SC) had approved the order of the Tribunal that had deleted the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) imposed by 28 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) the A.O and had, inter alia, observed, that the failure of the AO to strike-off the irrelevant default in the notice issued under