D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. M/S R.R.ENERGY LTD.,, RAIGARH(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

section 68 are uncalled for and hence, deleted. The appellant gets relief of Rs. 12,71,00,000/- in A.Y 2006-07 and Rs.6,51,50,000/- in A.Y 2007-08 23. 10. Ground Nos.3 to 5 in appeals of Revenue for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 and ground Nos.1 to 4 in appeals for assessment years

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. M/S R.R.ENERGY LTD.,, RAIGARH(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

section 68 are uncalled for and hence, deleted. The appellant gets relief of Rs. 12,71,00,000/- in A.Y 2006-07 and Rs.6,51,50,000/- in A.Y 2007-08 23. 10. Ground Nos.3 to 5 in appeals of Revenue for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 and ground Nos.1 to 4 in appeals for assessment years

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. M/S R.R.ENERGY LTD.,, RAIGARH(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

section 68 are uncalled for and hence, deleted. The appellant gets relief of Rs. 12,71,00,000/- in A.Y 2006-07 and Rs.6,51,50,000/- in A.Y 2007-08 23. 10. Ground Nos.3 to 5 in appeals of Revenue for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 and ground Nos.1 to 4 in appeals for assessment years

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. M/S R.R.ENERGY LTD.,, RAIGARH(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

section 68 are uncalled for and hence, deleted. The appellant gets relief of Rs. 12,71,00,000/- in A.Y 2006-07 and Rs.6,51,50,000/- in A.Y 2007-08 23. 10. Ground Nos.3 to 5 in appeals of Revenue for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 and ground Nos.1 to 4 in appeals for assessment years

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. M/S R.R.ENERGY LTD.,, RAIGARH(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

section 68 are uncalled for and hence, deleted. The appellant gets relief of Rs. 12,71,00,000/- in A.Y 2006-07 and Rs.6,51,50,000/- in A.Y 2007-08 23. 10. Ground Nos.3 to 5 in appeals of Revenue for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 and ground Nos.1 to 4 in appeals for assessment years

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHILAI vs. NIKHIL MITTAL, BHILAI

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.656/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.)

132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) in the case of Hanumant Trading and H.K Group on 19.02.2020. In his statement recorded on oath, Shri Mithilesh Kumar Tiwari, proprietor of M/s. H.K Enterprises has provided accommodation entries of bogus purchases and sale bills. That on verification of the details, it was observed that during the year

KUSH KEDIA vs. A.C.I.T. 2(1), RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 105 & 106/Rpr/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2005-06 Kush Kedia Kedia Bhawan, Mandi Road, Balodabazar.Dist. Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aklpk5127B .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur. (C.G.) ……""यथ" /Respondent

4. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT (Appeals) had carried the matter before us. 5. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representative of both the parties, perused the material available on record and the orders of 9 Kush Kedia Vs. ACIT-2(1) ITA Nos. 105 & 106 /RPR/2015 the lower authorities, as well as considered

KUSH KEDIA vs. A.C.I.T. 2(1), RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 105 & 106/Rpr/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2005-06 Kush Kedia Kedia Bhawan, Mandi Road, Balodabazar.Dist. Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aklpk5127B .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur. (C.G.) ……""यथ" /Respondent

4. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT (Appeals) had carried the matter before us. 5. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representative of both the parties, perused the material available on record and the orders of 9 Kush Kedia Vs. ACIT-2(1) ITA Nos. 105 & 106 /RPR/2015 the lower authorities, as well as considered

HANUMANT INGOTS PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Accordingly the same is also allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 346 & 347/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

132 was conducted in the case of Sarthak Group, Raipur dated 26.11.2019, whereas the case of assessee was covered under survey u/s 133A of the Act, dated 19.01.2019. In the investigation made by ADIT (Inv.-4)-1, Kolkata in the case of M/s Surakshit Real Estate Ltd. (PAN: AANCS3044G), it is found that the assessee company received

HANUMANT INGOTS PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Accordingly the same is also allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 346 & 347/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

132 was conducted in the case of Sarthak Group, Raipur dated 26.11.2019, whereas the case of assessee was covered under survey u/s 133A of the Act, dated 19.01.2019. In the investigation made by ADIT (Inv.-4)-1, Kolkata in the case of M/s Surakshit Real Estate Ltd. (PAN: AANCS3044G), it is found that the assessee company received

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), BILASPUR vs. MUSADDILAL MANSARAM INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. , BILASPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 160/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

purchase price as per section 50C of the Act, by applying a 10% tolerance limit retrospectively, and further erred in holding that the correct provision applicable was section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act instead of section 69, despite the fact that section 56(2)(vii)(b) is applicable only to individuals and Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs) for Assessment

MUSADDILAL MANSARAM INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 160/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

purchase price as per section 50C of the Act, by applying a 10% tolerance limit retrospectively, and further erred in holding that the correct provision applicable was section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act instead of section 69, despite the fact that section 56(2)(vii)(b) is applicable only to individuals and Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs) for Assessment

ANIL KUMAR JAIN,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.584 & 585/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Anil Kumar Jain 34, Maruti Life Style, Ravi Shankar University, S.O, Raipur-492 010 Pan: Ahypj7657H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Bilaspur (C.G.)

132 of the Act was conducted on the residential/business premises of the assessee on 19.02.2020. In response to the notice u/s.153A of the Act, the assessee filed return of income declaring income at Rs.8,13,000/-. That in response to the statutory notices issued to the assessee, the Ld. AR attended the proceedings from time to time and had furnished

ANIL KUMAR JAIN,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.584 & 585/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Anil Kumar Jain 34, Maruti Life Style, Ravi Shankar University, S.O, Raipur-492 010 Pan: Ahypj7657H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Bilaspur (C.G.)

132 of the Act was conducted on the residential/business premises of the assessee on 19.02.2020. In response to the notice u/s.153A of the Act, the assessee filed return of income declaring income at Rs.8,13,000/-. That in response to the statutory notices issued to the assessee, the Ld. AR attended the proceedings from time to time and had furnished

AGRAWAL INFRABUILD PRIVATE LIMITED ,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, RAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.10 & 11/Rpr/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Agrawal Infrabuild Private Limited, Vs Acit, Central Circle-Ii, Raipur 1St Floor, V.R.Plaza, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aafca 6636 C (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

132(4) of Income Tax Act 1961, during the course of search. The assessee has voluntarily estimated his net total income from business at the rate of 10% of turnover for A.Y. 2011-12 to 2016-17. For A.Y. 2017-18, since the financial year was not ended, the assessee has agreed to pay the tax at the rate

AGRAWAL INFRABUILD PRIVATE LIMITED ,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, RAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.10 & 11/Rpr/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Agrawal Infrabuild Private Limited, Vs Acit, Central Circle-Ii, Raipur 1St Floor, V.R.Plaza, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aafca 6636 C (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

132(4) of Income Tax Act 1961, during the course of search. The assessee has voluntarily estimated his net total income from business at the rate of 10% of turnover for A.Y. 2011-12 to 2016-17. For A.Y. 2017-18, since the financial year was not ended, the assessee has agreed to pay the tax at the rate

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR PATEL,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 212/Rpr/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18)

purchase of motorcycle in cash i.e. Rs.1,25,000/- is added to his total income treated as unexplained investment u/s 69 and tax is charged as per provisions of section 115BBE of the I.T. Act. The assessee has offered Rs.1,25,000/- for taxation during search proceedings in statement u/s 132(4), however, the assessee has not included Rs.1

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 1(1), RAIPUR vs. M/S R.R. INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 144/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. R.R. Industrial Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd., Station Road, Telghani Naka, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaecr4291B ……""यथ" / Respondent

Section 68 of the Act held that where the revenue urges that the amount of share application money has been received from bogus shareholders, then it is for 27 ACIT-1(1),Raipur Vs. M/s. R. R. Industrial Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd. the Income Tax Officer to proceed by reopening the assessment of such shareholders and assess them