D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. DEVI IRON & POWER LIMITED, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 267 & 268/Rpr/2014 Co Nos. 30 & 31/Rpr/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Devi Iron & Power Pvt. Ltd. Mahamaya Tower, 3Rd & 4Th Floor, In Front Of Anupam Nagar, Near Varun Honda, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaeca3704G ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.101/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-2, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Devi Iron & Power Pvt. Ltd. B-08-09, Sector-C, Industrial Area, Urla, Sarora, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aabcd9753D ……""यथ" / Respondent Co Nos.30 & 31/Rpr/2015

credit worthiness of the said company, I am convinced that no adverse view can be taken regarding identity or credit worthiness of the said company when the said company has been duly assessed and the share capital and reserves i.e. the net worth of the said company was duly accepted in scrutiny assessment proceedings, in the factual matrix of this

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,RAIPUR, RAIPUR (CG) vs. M/S DEVI IRON & POWER PVT LTD., RAIPUR, RAIPUR (CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 267 & 268/Rpr/2014 Co Nos. 30 & 31/Rpr/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Devi Iron & Power Pvt. Ltd. Mahamaya Tower, 3Rd & 4Th Floor, In Front Of Anupam Nagar, Near Varun Honda, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaeca3704G ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.101/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-2, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Devi Iron & Power Pvt. Ltd. B-08-09, Sector-C, Industrial Area, Urla, Sarora, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aabcd9753D ……""यथ" / Respondent Co Nos.30 & 31/Rpr/2015

credit worthiness of the said company, I am convinced that no adverse view can be taken regarding identity or credit worthiness of the said company when the said company has been duly assessed and the share capital and reserves i.e. the net worth of the said company was duly accepted in scrutiny assessment proceedings, in the factual matrix of this

M/S SHIVAM TRACTOR,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

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. 219/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Shivam Tractor Shivam Tractors, Raipur Road, Dhamtari (C.G.)-493 773 Pan : Aclfs1313H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Dhamtari (C.G.)

unexplained cash credits u/s.68 of the Act. I say so for the reason that it is a matter of fact borne from the record that not only the assessee had substantiated the aforesaid sale transaction on the basis of invoices, delivery challans, and copies of accounts of the aforesaid persons, but also the said persons had duly confirmed of having

SHRI SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR AGRAWAL, KORBA,KORBA(CG) vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,RANGE KORBA, KORBA(CG)

In the result, appeal of the assesee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 93 & 94/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Prop. Of M/S. Shrikishan & Co., T.P Nagar, Korba (C.G.) Pan : Acgpa4350B .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

cash credits for the solitary reason that they had failed to comply with the notice issued u/s.131 of the Act by the ADIT(Inv.), Bhubaneswar. It was further averred by the ld. A.R that as the assessee had repaid the respective loans to all the lenders in F.Y 2015-16 and the same had been accepted by the department, therefore

SHRI SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR AGRAWAL, KORBA,KORBA(CG) vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,RANGE KORBA, KORBA(CG)

In the result, appeal of the assesee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 93 & 94/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Prop. Of M/S. Shrikishan & Co., T.P Nagar, Korba (C.G.) Pan : Acgpa4350B .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

cash credits for the solitary reason that they had failed to comply with the notice issued u/s.131 of the Act by the ADIT(Inv.), Bhubaneswar. It was further averred by the ld. A.R that as the assessee had repaid the respective loans to all the lenders in F.Y 2015-16 and the same had been accepted by the department, therefore

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX, RAIPUR vs. BALAJEE LOHA PVT. LTD., RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 356/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15)

unexplained cash credit of Rs.11,54,65,000/- is added to the total income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated separately. 7 DCIT vs Balajee Loha Pvt. Ltd., Raipur 3.7 Ld. AO, further observed another discrepancy in the P&L of the assessee and had made

M.J. STEELS PVT. LTD.,RAIPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 28/Rpr/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-2016

depreciation of ₹50,49,804/-. The case of the appellant company was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the assessment u/s 143(3) was completed with an addition of ₹1,08,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act, as unexplained cash credit

PRADEEP KUMAR AGRAWAL, DHAMTARI,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 158, 159 & 160/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18)

unexplained, the assessee is engaged in the business of trading in Paddy, Rice, other by products and transport, thus, the credits are in the nature of business receipts of the assessee, thus, towards total credits of Rs.8,31,02,597/- an estimated addition of 5% has been held as Pradeep Kumar Agrawal vs ITO, Ward- Dhamtari business income

PRADEEP KUMAR AGRAWAL, DHAMTARI,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 158, 159 & 160/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18)

unexplained, the assessee is engaged in the business of trading in Paddy, Rice, other by products and transport, thus, the credits are in the nature of business receipts of the assessee, thus, towards total credits of Rs.8,31,02,597/- an estimated addition of 5% has been held as Pradeep Kumar Agrawal vs ITO, Ward- Dhamtari business income

PRADEEP KUMAR AGRAWAL, DHAMTARI,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 158, 159 & 160/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18)

unexplained, the assessee is engaged in the business of trading in Paddy, Rice, other by products and transport, thus, the credits are in the nature of business receipts of the assessee, thus, towards total credits of Rs.8,31,02,597/- an estimated addition of 5% has been held as Pradeep Kumar Agrawal vs ITO, Ward- Dhamtari business income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), BHILAI vs. MESERS ABIS POULTRY PRIVATE LIMITED, RAJNANDGAON

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.233 & 234/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010 & 2011-2012) Acit-2(1), Bhilai Vs M/S Abis Poultry Private Limited, Baldeo Bag, Rajnandgaon Pan No. :Aaeca 87411 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

unexplained during the course of assessment proceedings?”. 2. “Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in accepting that the share application money had already been surrendered before the Hon’ble ITSC, Kolkata whereas the concerned assessee had not approached the Hon’ble ITSC. 3. “Whether on points

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), BHILAI vs. MESERS ABIS POULTRY PRIVATE LIMITED, RAJNANDGAON

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.233 & 234/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010 & 2011-2012) Acit-2(1), Bhilai Vs M/S Abis Poultry Private Limited, Baldeo Bag, Rajnandgaon Pan No. :Aaeca 87411 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

unexplained during the course of assessment proceedings?”. 2. “Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in accepting that the share application money had already been surrendered before the Hon’ble ITSC, Kolkata whereas the concerned assessee had not approached the Hon’ble ITSC. 3. “Whether on points

M/S KULKARNI & SAHU BUILDCON PVT.LTD.,BHILAI(CG) vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1), BHILAI(CG)

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.30/Rpr/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2012-13 M/S. Kulkarni & Sahu Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. B-495, Cross Street-25, Smriti Nagar, Bhilai-490020 (C.G.) Pan :Aaeck3160C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

unexplained investment or cash surrendered during the course of survey operations was nothing but the accumulation of the profits of the assessee, which it had been systematically enjoying, and hence on being detected was surrendered in the course of survey operation as undisclosed income, thus, the same was liable to be assessed as the assessee’s undisclosed income against which

M/S BHILAI JAYPEE CEMENT LIMITED,BHILAI(CG) vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, RAIPUR (CG)

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.113/Rpr/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Bhilai Jaypee Cement Limited 14B, F Pocket, Maroda, Bhilai. Pan : Aadcb1675Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of IT Act of Rs.21,53,64,890/-. 2. Depreciation for railway siding worth Rs. 13,34,72,417/- as claimed

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

unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act. Thus, Ground of appeal No.2 raised by the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations. 13. We shall now advert to the grievance of the assessee that the CIT(Appeals) had erred in upholding a disallowance of Rs.1,14,520/-, viz. (i) disallowance of 20% out of depreciation

DY. C.I.T. 1(1), RAIPUR (CG) vs. SHRI RAJESH MAKHIJANI, KAWARDHA (C.G.)

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

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

unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the I.T.Act, 1961 specially when the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the 2 Assessment Year : 2010-2011 ground related in making of assessment u/s.144 of the I.T.Act, 1961.” 3. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that the assessee derives income from execution of civil contract works. The assessee filed return of income on 18.3.2011 showing

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

unexplained cash credit, hi this backdrop, I am convinced that the action of the A.O in holding the entire sub contract expenditure as 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

FAKIR CHAND AGRAWAL,BILASPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 61/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Fakir Chand Agrawal Plot No. 22 & 23, Anjani Rani Durgavati, Industrial Area, Pendra Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) Pan : Aezpa7821C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Raipur-1. ……""यथ" / Respondent

unexplained expenditure incurred by the assessee u/s.69C of the Act and computed the consequential tax liability as per provisions of Section 4 Fakir Chand Agrawal Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 115BBE of the Act, therefore, having failed to do so his order passed u/s.143(3) dated 25.12.2019 was erroneous in so far it was prejudicial to the interest

M/S RADHIKA WATER & AMUSEMENT PARK INDS,,BILASPUR(CG) vs. I.T.O. WARD 1(2), BILASPUR(CG)

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.320/Rpr/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 M/S. Radhika Water & Amusement Park Industries, Dayalband, Bilaspur (C.G.) Pan : Aaifk7321K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Bilaspur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

depreciation. Thus, the additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed in terms of my aforesaid observations. 12. I shall now deal with the grievance of the assessee that the CIT(Appeals) had erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.1,20,000/- (out of Rs.7,41,840/-) that was made by the A.O u/s.68