ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR vs. M/S ANIMESH ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 14/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 The Acit-1(1) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan Civil Lines, Raipur(C.G.)-492001 .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Animesh Ispat Private Limited Block-A, 2Nd Floor Maruti Business Park, G.E.Road Raipur (C.G.)-492001 Pan : Aaeca9084F ……""यथ" / Respondent

price received by the assessee would be in the vicinity of Rs. 3. 72 per unit i.e. charged by the Board from its industrial consumers/users. Thus, under the given circumstances, it would be in the fitness of things to hold that the consideration recorded by the assessee's undertaking generating electric power for transfer of power for captive consumption

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR vs. C. G. ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 95/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15)

Transfer Pricing Officer- TOP under Section 92CA could be invalid and bad in law”. Therefore, the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) was justified, based on proper appreciation of the facts & law and well in accordance with the principle laid down in the jurisprudence referred to herein above, therefore, had rightly decided the issue in favour of the assessee, resultantly

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

price of power supplied to its Ferro Division and therefore, the disallowance made by the A.O is hereby deleted. “ 7. Before us, ld D.R could not controvert the findings of the CIT(A). In the instant case, we find that the CIT(A) has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of the assessee

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

price of power supplied to its Ferro Division and therefore, the disallowance made by the A.O is hereby deleted. “ 7. Before us, ld D.R could not controvert the findings of the CIT(A). In the instant case, we find that the CIT(A) has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of the assessee

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

price of power supplied to its Ferro Division and therefore, the disallowance made by the A.O is hereby deleted. “ 7. Before us, ld D.R could not controvert the findings of the CIT(A). In the instant case, we find that the CIT(A) has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of the assessee

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

transfer was done on the market value on that date. 20. The proviso to section 80-IA (8) of the Act requires the AO to compute the profits and gains in the manner already proved. And in case the manner presents exceptional difficulties then the AO is empowered to compute profits and gains on such reasonable basis

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

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

section 4(1), we find no reason to disturb the Commissioners orders.” 15. The Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:- “According to us, not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity

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).

transfers electricity to the Steel Division and other division, the captive power plant is doing so as a generator and distributor and not as a simple generator of electricity. Hence, it is clear that the market value for the transaction of sale of power from the captive power plant to the Steel Division shall be sale price of CSPDCL

RAM BHUVAN YADAV, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.325/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Ram Bhuvan Yadav Villa No.Cb-3, Romanceque, G.E. Road, Labhandih, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Abbpy6681R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that Act." 3. The assessee further submitted that circle rate fixed by the Collector is not full proof for determination of the rate for the area

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

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

27, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer in the assessment order himself has admitted that the assessee company is found incorporated with an object to take up infrastructure activity of development of railway siding etc. The company is yet to start the business of infrastructure and for this purpose LIPL has advanced an amount

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), BILASPUR vs. MESERS NARMADA DRINKS PRIVATE LIMITED, BILASPUR

In the result ground No. 2 & 3 of the appeal of the revenue stands rejected

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 89/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs M/S Narmada Drinks Private Limited Circle-1(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Sirgitti Industrial Area, Tifra, Bilaspur Mahima Complex, Bilaspur (C.G.) (C.G.) Pan: Aaacn5880C (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.B. Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2023

Price on specified domestic transactions. Subsequently the case of assessee was converted from “e-proceedings” to “conventional mode” by taking necessary approval of the PCIT, Bilaspur. In the assessment, Ld. AO made disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D, disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) and also u/s 40A(3). that against the said additions the assessee preferred an appeal before

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, 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

27 CCH 0564 Del Trib] Where the assessee had shown the amount received from a private limited company in which he held more than 10 per cent shares as loan in the balance sheet, his contention that the said amount was security deposit for the camera given on rent to the company cannot be accepted more particularly when the assessee

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

27 CCH 0564 Del Trib] Where the assessee had shown the amount received from a private limited company in which he held more than 10 per cent shares as loan in the balance sheet, his contention that the said amount was security deposit for the camera given on rent to the company cannot be accepted more particularly when the assessee

DY. C.I.T.2(1), RAIPUR (CG) vs. ABHISHEK ATLANI, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit- 2(1), Abhishek Atlani, Raipur (Cg). Atlani Bunglow, Khamardih Road, Vs. Shankar Nagar, Raipur (Cg).

transfer of land. The agreement dated 01.04.2006 is not the agreement to sell the property in question, but it is an agreement having reference to some amount receivable from Suncity Project Pvt. Ltd. Neither the agreement nor the pen drive was found from the control and possession of the appellant and on the contrary, these were found from the brother

DY. C.I.T.2(1), RAIPUR (CG) vs. SHRI TARAL MODI, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit- 2(1), Abhishek Atlani, Raipur (Cg). Atlani Bunglow, Khamardih Road, Vs. Shankar Nagar, Raipur (Cg).

transfer of land. The agreement dated 01.04.2006 is not the agreement to sell the property in question, but it is an agreement having reference to some amount receivable from Suncity Project Pvt. Ltd. Neither the agreement nor the pen drive was found from the control and possession of the appellant and on the contrary, these were found from the brother

DY. C.I.T.2(1), RAIPUR (CG) vs. SHRI SURESH ATLANI, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit- 2(1), Abhishek Atlani, Raipur (Cg). Atlani Bunglow, Khamardih Road, Vs. Shankar Nagar, Raipur (Cg).

transfer of land. The agreement dated 01.04.2006 is not the agreement to sell the property in question, but it is an agreement having reference to some amount receivable from Suncity Project Pvt. Ltd. Neither the agreement nor the pen drive was found from the control and possession of the appellant and on the contrary, these were found from the brother