D.C.I.T. 2(1), RAIPUR vs. M/S BAGADIYA BROS. PVT. LTD., RAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Transfer Pricing Study (TP Study) before the AO / TPO. The turnover of the assessee company was Rs. 996 crores and the trading results were accepted by the Assessing Officer. The assessee has international transaction with the Associate Enterprise (AE) for vessel freight (chartering) of Rs. 232,72,71,145; vessel freight (trading) of Rs. 10,66,94,209/-; export

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

transferred is overstated in comparison to the market value, the A.O has power to re-compute the profit by substituting market value of such goods. In the explanation below section 801A(8), it is provided that, the expression "market value' for the purpose of the sub-section means the price that such goods or services would ordinarily fetch

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

transferred is overstated in comparison to the market value, the A.O has power to re-compute the profit by substituting market value of such goods. In the explanation below section 801A(8), it is provided that, the expression "market value' for the purpose of the sub-section means the price that such goods or services would ordinarily fetch

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

transferred is overstated in comparison to the market value, the A.O has power to re-compute the profit by substituting market value of such goods. In the explanation below section 801A(8), it is provided that, the expression "market value' for the purpose of the sub-section means the price that such goods or services would ordinarily fetch

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. SHRI BAJRANG POWER AND ISPAT LTD., RAIPUR

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 201/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Bajrang Power & Ispat Limited, 00, Vill. Borjhara, Urla Guma Road, Raipur-493221. Pan : Aaccb2944D ……""यथ" / Respondent

price is determined in the normal course of trade and competition. Also, it was the claim of the assessee company that the rate of Rs.3.17/- per unit that was charged by it for inter- unit transfer of the electricity was lower than the actual cost at which CGPDCL would have supplied electricity. As such, the assessee company, based

DY. C.I.T.1(2), RAIPUR (CG) vs. M/S GODAWARI POWER & ISPAT LTD.,, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit- 1(2), Godawari Power & Ispat Ltd., Raipur (Cg). Plot No.482/2, Industrial Growth Vs. Centre, Phase- 1, Siltara, Raipur (Cg).

14. So far as ground of appeal no.(a)(ii) is concerned, the facts of the case, in brief, are that the power generating eligible units of the assessee company namely, the Unit-1 & Unit-2 sell the electricity to outside parties as well as transfer the electricity to their other divisions for captive consumption. From the various details furnished

JAIN ENTERPRISES, BHILAI,DURG vs. PCIT, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as above

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 187/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19) Jain Enterprises, Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 87-B, Light Industrial Area, Raipur-1, Central Revenue Building, Bhilai-490026, C.G. Civil Lines, Raipur, 492001, C.G. Pan: Aagfj3469G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri S. R. Rao, Advocate राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Ram Tiwari, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 11/02/2026 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 24.03.2025 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1 (‘Pcit’) Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

price for valuation of the closing stock (iii) non-appreciation of the transfer of quantitative details from VAT regime to GST regime and the hardship faced by the assessee during the course of transaction phase [VAT to GST]. 7. On the other hand, Shri Ram Tiwari, Ld. CIT-DR defended the impugned order by reiterating the details mentioned therein

RAHUL BAJPAI,IDGAH CHOWK vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), SHRI RAM PLAZA

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.345/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rahul Bajpai Idgah Chowk, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh-495 001 Pan: Aexpb4410L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

price) of the land in question. In the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that appellant bought land from Shri Somesh Sukla and the return of income of the appellant showed purchase cost of Rs.5,00,000/-, but stamp duty value of the land determined by the stamp duty authority was Rs.50,65,900/-. When asked to explain why the difference

THE DY. CIT-1(1),, RAIPUR (CG) vs. RAKESH SARAOGI & SONI (HUF),, RAIPUR (CG)

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Ram Lal Negi)

14. The SEBI vide order dated 31.05.2006 had terminated and vacated the ad interim order by which trading in the shares of Nageshwar Investment Ltd. (one of the company in which the CSE suspended the transaction). The relevant part of the SEBI order reads as under:- 10.1 Thus, on the conspectus of the facts and the material attendant circumstances

SMT SMT. PRIYA SONI,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(5), RAIPUR (CG)

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.32/Rpr/2017 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013) Smt. Priya Soni, Vs Ito, Ward-4(5), Raipur C/O-M/S Shivani Jewellers Ramnarayan Soni, Lilli Chowk, Purani Basti, Raipur Pan No. : Awips 5478 A (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

price of raw black stone + Direct expenses to make it saleable). It is further submitted by the ld. AR that books of accounts cannot be rejected merely on the ground that day to day register were not maintained by the assessee. Quantitative details of raw materials, finished products and by products were not furnished in 3CD report, but during

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RAIPUR (CG) vs. SHRI RAJKUMAR RATHI, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 125/Rpr/2016 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Rajkumar Rathi, Kawardha Bada, Opp. Surya Apartment, Katora Talab, Raipur (C.G.) Pin-492001 Pan: Aappr0032A ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri R.B. Doshi, Adv. Revenue By : Shri A.K. Laskar, Jcit

14) rendering capital gains on certain agriculture land liable to tax, an exemption as introduced analogous to that granted in 5 A.Y.2012-13 respect of residential houses u/s 54. Under this section, where the capital gain arises from transfer of land which in the two immediately preceding years from the date of transfer, was being used for agriculture purposes

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(1), RAIPUR vs. M/S MAHENDRA SPONGE 7 POWER PVT LTD, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 197/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Mahendra Sponge & Power Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.76 & 77, Industrial Growth Area, Siltara, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aadcm5765E ……""यथ" / Respondent

transferred to CSEB would not fall within the meaning of “market value” as contemplated in the “Explanation” to Section 80IA(8) of the Act, therefore, no adverse inferences on the said count were liable to be drawn in its hands. Apart from that, it was submitted by the assessee that the average 7 ACIT Vs. M/s. Mahendra Sponge & Power

DY.C.I.T. 1(2), RAIPUR (CG) vs. M/S RISHABH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

14. The Ld. DR strongly opposed the order of the CIT (A). He submitted that the findings given by the CIT(A) are factually incorrect. The payment has been made by Lafarge India (P) Ltd. is for the efforts/ services rendered by the assessee and it has to be refunded/ returned in case of any failure on the part

CHANDHOK COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 200/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Chandhok Cold Storage Private Limited Ph No.100/28, Bilaspur Road, Ravigram S.O, Raipur-492 001 Pan : Aadcc8354P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

transfer at a general body meeting of the company; (iii) reserves and surplus, by whatever name called, even if the resulting figure is negative, other than those set apart towards depreciation; (iv) any amount representing provision for taxation, other than amount of tax paid as deduction or collection at source or as advance tax payment as reduced by the amount

DY C.I.T..1(1), RAIPUR (CG) vs. M/S RAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, RAIPUR (CG)

Accordingly, we uphold the order of the First Appellate Authority. Appeal dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Ram Lal Negi)

price at which any such land has been acquired from them. 16. The petitioners contended that the Corporation was a trading one. The reasons given were that the Corporation could sell property, namely, transfer land that the Corporation had borrowing powers ; and that the Corporation was entitled to moneys by way of rents and profits. Reliance was placed

NAYA RAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), RAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaiआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 174 & 63/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year(S) : 2012-13 & 2013-14 Naya Raipur Development Authority Prayavas Bhawan, North Block, Sector 19, Naya Raipur Marg, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar(C.G.) Pin-492 002. Pan : Aaalc0225H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption) Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : S/Shri S.R Rao & Rajesh Kumar Chawda, Ar’S. Revenue By : Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 09.06.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022

price at which any such land has been acquired from them. 16. The petitioners contended that the Corporation was a trading one. The reasons given were that the Corporation could sell property, namely, transfer land that the Corporation had borrowing powers ; and that the Corporation was entitled to moneys by way of rents and profits. Reliance was placed

NAYA RAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), RAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaiआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 174 & 63/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year(S) : 2012-13 & 2013-14 Naya Raipur Development Authority Prayavas Bhawan, North Block, Sector 19, Naya Raipur Marg, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar(C.G.) Pin-492 002. Pan : Aaalc0225H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption) Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : S/Shri S.R Rao & Rajesh Kumar Chawda, Ar’S. Revenue By : Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 09.06.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022

price at which any such land has been acquired from them. 16. The petitioners contended that the Corporation was a trading one. The reasons given were that the Corporation could sell property, namely, transfer land that the Corporation had borrowing powers ; and that the Corporation was entitled to moneys by way of rents and profits. Reliance was placed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. S.P. BUILDCON PVT. LTD., RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 35 & 38/Rpr/2023) (Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V S.P. Buildcon Private Limited Circle-1(1), S Ff-06, Shyam Plaza, Pandri Bus Stand, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Raipur Pan: Aajcs0653H (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) . (""यथ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Amit M. Jain, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 05-09-2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2023

14. In rebuttal, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the account of the directors of the company Shri Sanjay Raheja and Shri S.P. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Deepak Raheja, the directors of the company are in the nature of current account, the amount given to the directors are for the business purpose. It is also mentioned that the distributable profit