SHREE SHYAM SALES CORPORATION,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1(2), RAIPUR. (C.G.), RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 188/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

bogus purchase treating the same as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act for Rs.1,23,97,06,013/- and 4 Shree Shyam Sales Corporation vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur the total assessed income of the assessee was determined at Rs.1,23,98,67,719/-. 3. Aggrieved with the aforesaid findings enhancing the income of assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)), BHILAI vs. SHRI SANJAY JAIN, BHILAI

In the result ground no. 06 of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: Ita 55/Rpr/2020 (Assessment Years:2014-15) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, V Shri Sanjay Jain, Bhilai S C/O M/S Sidhharth Industries, Plot No. 38, Industrial Estate, Bhilai, C.G. Pan: Aet Pj1859D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) . (""यथ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ravi Agarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 23-08-2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 09-11-2023 Pronouncement

purchases of goods by the assessee, therefore, provisions of TDS cannot be applied. In view of overall facts and circumstances of the present case respectfully following the judgments in the case of Parag Mansukhlal shah (supra) and Vidyut Corporation (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the impugned transactions shown under the head ‘Bank Commission and Charges’, which

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)

bogus and not genuine, Assessing Officer was justified in adding amount of purchases towards its income - Held, yes The facts on records extracted from survey and assessment proceedings and is apparent. The apparent is real. The facts and surrounding information on records, and statement disclosed the truth the paid in cash many expenses and there is no agreement with subcontract

THE ACIT- 1(1),, RAIPUR (CG) vs. M/S. AATHARVA INFRASTRUCTURE,, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-2011

bogus is self defeating and contradictory. 13. I have carefully perused the details of the subcontractors furnished by the appellant, ledgers of the subcontractor, bills hi respect of sub contract work executed, work orders issued to the subcontractors by the appellant firm. It is seen that the bills in respect of sub-contractor work and work orders issued

THE DY. CIT-1(2),, RAIPUR (CG) vs. M/S. SAUMYA MINING LTD.,, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

TDS made u/s 194C thereon was also filed. The assessment of said company for assessment year 2010-11 was made by the It. Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-I, Raipur and in the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. has found that the claim of sub-letting work to the assessee and its onward execution by the present assessee

MESERS METEX ENGINEERS,BHILAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHILAI

In the result Ground No 8 of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.238/Rpr/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-2016) M/S Metex Engineers, Vs Ito, Ward-1(2), Bhilai Shop No.10-11, Ganesh Complex, Shakti Vihar, Risali Bhilai, Durg Pan No. :Aawfm 8852 G & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.247/Rpr/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Ito, Ward-1(2), Bhilai Vs M/S Metex Engineers, Shop No.10-11, Ganesh Complex, Shakti Vihar, Risali Bhilai, Durg Pan No. :Aawfm 8852 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""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 : 24/04/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

TDS made on eye wash. Ld AO was of the belief that, the assessee has failed to justify the claim by producing evidence in support of job performed or services rendered by the beneficiaries, therefore, the payment of Commission made was entirely considered as bogus and added to the total income of the assessee. 7.1 Aggrieved, by the assessment

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHILAI vs. MESERS METEX ENGINEERS, BHILAI

In the result Ground No 8 of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.238/Rpr/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-2016) M/S Metex Engineers, Vs Ito, Ward-1(2), Bhilai Shop No.10-11, Ganesh Complex, Shakti Vihar, Risali Bhilai, Durg Pan No. :Aawfm 8852 G & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.247/Rpr/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Ito, Ward-1(2), Bhilai Vs M/S Metex Engineers, Shop No.10-11, Ganesh Complex, Shakti Vihar, Risali Bhilai, Durg Pan No. :Aawfm 8852 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""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 : 24/04/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

TDS made on eye wash. Ld AO was of the belief that, the assessee has failed to justify the claim by producing evidence in support of job performed or services rendered by the beneficiaries, therefore, the payment of Commission made was entirely considered as bogus and added to the total income of the assessee. 7.1 Aggrieved, by the assessment

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) ..

bogus share application money u/s 68. The addition made by the A.O. and confirmed by by Ld CIT-A, were unjustified, unwarranted and uncalled for. 9. In continuation, Ld AR further drew our attention to the submission of the assessee before the Ld AO during the post search assessment proceedings submitted on 13.11.2018, the same is extracted as under

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) ..

bogus share application money u/s 68. The addition made by the A.O. and confirmed by by Ld CIT-A, were unjustified, unwarranted and uncalled for. 9. In continuation, Ld AR further drew our attention to the submission of the assessee before the Ld AO during the post search assessment proceedings submitted on 13.11.2018, the same is extracted as under

SUSHIL KUMAR AGRAWAL,KORBA vs. DEPUTY COMMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, KORBA, KORBA

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.148/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Prop. Of M/S. Shrikishan & Co., Darri Road, Korba (C.G.) Pan : Acgpa4350B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

purchase and expenses 5. Lumpsum disallowance on account of salary Rs,1,00,000/- expenses 6. Disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act on Rs.50,000/- account of audit fees 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) who sustained two additions/disallowances, viz. (i) disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act : Rs.8

M/S B.B. VERMA,KORBA(CG) vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,RANGE-I, BILASPUR(CG)

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No. 324/Rpr/2016 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. B.B. Verma Hig-9, C1, C2, Near Niharika Talkies, Korba (C.G) Pan : Aqlps2396C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1, Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By :Shri G.S. Agarwal, Ar Revenue By :Shri Shravankumar Meena, Dr

TDS is to be allowed in its hands on pro-rata basis in the respective years, in which, the same is offered as its income, accordingly direct the AO so. . We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations disposed off the Ground of appeal No.1. 9. We shall now deal with the grievance of the assessee that the CIT(Appeals

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

bogus claim of expenditure incorporated under the above heads of expenses. Therefore, it is found that the submission of the Ld. AR is acceptable and hence, no penalty under the aforesaid section is imposable against such addition. Thus the penalty imposed by the learned AO in the issue of payments made to the ESM by the company

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

bogus claim of expenditure incorporated under the above heads of expenses. Therefore, it is found that the submission of the Ld. AR is acceptable and hence, no penalty under the aforesaid section is imposable against such addition. Thus the penalty imposed by the learned AO in the issue of payments made to the ESM by the company

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

bogus claim of expenditure incorporated under the above heads of expenses. Therefore, it is found that the submission of the Ld. AR is acceptable and hence, no penalty under the aforesaid section is imposable against such addition. Thus the penalty imposed by the learned AO in the issue of payments made to the ESM by the company

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

bogus claim of expenditure incorporated under the above heads of expenses. Therefore, it is found that the submission of the Ld. AR is acceptable and hence, no penalty under the aforesaid section is imposable against such addition. Thus the penalty imposed by the learned AO in the issue of payments made to the ESM by the company

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

bogus claim of expenditure incorporated under the above heads of expenses. Therefore, it is found that the submission of the Ld. AR is acceptable and hence, no penalty under the aforesaid section is imposable against such addition. Thus the penalty imposed by the learned AO in the issue of payments made to the ESM by the company

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

bogus claim of expenditure incorporated under the above heads of expenses. Therefore, it is found that the submission of the Ld. AR is acceptable and hence, no penalty under the aforesaid section is imposable against such addition. Thus the penalty imposed by the learned AO in the issue of payments made to the ESM by the company

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

bogus claim of expenditure incorporated under the above heads of expenses. Therefore, it is found that the submission of the Ld. AR is acceptable and hence, no penalty under the aforesaid section is imposable against such addition. Thus the penalty imposed by the learned AO in the issue of payments made to the ESM by the company