ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), BHILAI vs. SHRI NITIN SANKHLA, DURG

In the result, grounds no 2 to 7 on this single issue of the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.98/Rpr/2020 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax- Vs Shri Nitin Sankhla 1(1), Bhilai 1St Floor, Navkar Bullion, Above Navin Jeweller, Jawahar Chowk, Durg Pan No. :Bbups 4874 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. : Shri Ravi Agarwal, Ca "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ila M. Parmar, Cit- Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02/06/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

unexplained cash credits due to lack of evidences regarding source of such cash deposits? 3. "Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) was justified by ignoring that the government has brought amendment in the section 68 of the Act by introducing two provisos that the source of source of share capital

M/S M SUBBA RAJU,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, RAJNANDGAON, RAJNANDGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.19/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. M Subba Raju D. No.32-12-16, Flat No.401, Sri Sri Kakatiya Towers, Boyapati Madhavrao Street, Mogalrajpuram, Vijaywada Pan: Aaefm3293R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1, Rajnandgaon (C.G) ……""यथ" / Respondent

unexplained money in the hands of the assessee and such cash deposits were made during the demonetization period amounting to Rs.9 lacs. The total cash deposits in F.Y.2016-17 relevant to A.Y.2017-18 was Rs.13,90,000/-, out of which, the A.O disallowed

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

money etc. These provisions do not provide for any separate head under which such incomes are to be covered. On a conjoint reading of section 14 porunaparte and sections 69/69A porotraparte, it turns out that such incomes have to be classified under one of the five heads. This proposition of law has been judicially recognised in certain decisions including

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

disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee.” 5. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). During the course of appellate proceedings, it was submitted by the assessee company that it was in receipt of share application money of Rs. 10.50 crore (wrongly mentioned

TEKCHAND PUNJABI, RAIGARH,RAIGARH vs. ITO, WARD-1, RAIGARH, RAIGARH

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.569/Rpr/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17 Tekchand Punjabi, C/O Shankar Lal Tekchand, Subhash Chowk, Raigarh, 496001, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aeqpp2267N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

unexplained money, being sourced from undisclosed sources. The findings and addition made by the Assessing officer is upheld.” 3. I have carefully perused the documents on record, heard the submissions of the parties herein, analyzing the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. In this case, there was a disallowance

M/S JMD CRUSHER, JAGDALPUR,BASTAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-JAGDALPUR, BASTAR

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 102, 103 & 104/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year:2017-18)

disallowed. Ground 03 : In this ground of appeal the appellant objected the Id. Assessing Officer Id. Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of Rs.2,20,34,300/ treating the same as unexplained money

M/S JMD CRUSHER, JAGDALPUR,BASTAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- JAGDALPUR, BASTAR

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 102, 103 & 104/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year:2017-18)

disallowed. Ground 03 : In this ground of appeal the appellant objected the Id. Assessing Officer Id. Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of Rs.2,20,34,300/ treating the same as unexplained money

M/S JMD CRUSHER, JAGDALPUR,BASTAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-JAGDALPUR, BASTAR

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 102, 103 & 104/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year:2017-18)

disallowed. Ground 03 : In this ground of appeal the appellant objected the Id. Assessing Officer Id. Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of Rs.2,20,34,300/ treating the same as unexplained money

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR vs. M/S OMAX MINERALS PVT. LTD. GADUMARIA, RAIGARH

In the result appeal ITA No

money by the assessee company which is circulated 5 & CO No.09/RPR/2018 through Kolkata based briefcase company in terms of share application/premium in the form of accommodation entry. Accordingly, the AO added the same as unexplained cash credit and disallowed

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

money from the aforesaid investor company viz. Escourt Finvest Pvt. Ltd, then the A.O could not have on the basis of surmises and conjectures rejected the said claim and drawn adverse inferences in the hands of the assessee company. Our aforesaid view is found to be fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi

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

money from the aforesaid investor company viz. Escourt Finvest Pvt. Ltd, then the A.O could not have on the basis of surmises and conjectures rejected the said claim and drawn adverse inferences in the hands of the assessee company. Our aforesaid view is found to be fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi

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

money from the aforesaid investor company viz. Escourt Finvest Pvt. Ltd, then the A.O could not have on the basis of surmises and conjectures rejected the said claim and drawn adverse inferences in the hands of the assessee company. Our aforesaid view is found to be fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi

INCOME TAX OFFICER, RAIPUR vs. SANJAY KUMAR PUNJABI, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.565/Rpr/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2019-20 Income Tax Officer, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001 .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

disallowance of claim u/s 80GGC and 3 Income Tax Officer Vs. Sanjay Kumar Punjabi Rs.73,513/- as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s

LOKESHWAR KUMAR SAHU,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX ASSESSING OFFICER, DHAMTARI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.510/Rpr/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Lokeshwar Kumar Sahu, Shri Balaji Construction Co. Near Rest House Kathuriya Complex, Ratnabandha Road, Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Ctnps5629H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

disallowing the un-explained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) and adding thereby Rs.3,50,000/- in the hands of the assesse. The assessee had deposited an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- in his bank account and had subsequently, given an un-secured loan to Mr. Santosh Ramrakhyani, earning an interest income therefrom

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), RAIPUR vs. MESERS VANDANA ISPAT LIMITED, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

money and share premium by the assessee company and the same cannot be terms as unexplained and brought within the ambit of provisions of section 68 of the IT Act. Thus we do not perceive any reason to interfere with the observation of the Ld CIT(A) qua the impugned 18 allegation of the revenue and thus upheld the order

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

unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act: Rs.14,65,920/-. 6. We have heard the ld. authorized representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by them to drive home their respective contentions. 7. Apropos the disallowance