BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

23 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Unexplained Investmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi328Mumbai312Jaipur153Ahmedabad137Hyderabad110Indore85Chennai66Pune64Surat62Kolkata50Rajkot48Bangalore45Chandigarh32Allahabad24Amritsar23Raipur23Nagpur16Ranchi12Lucknow11Visakhapatnam10Patna10Agra8Guwahati7Jodhpur6Jabalpur6Dehradun6Cuttack2

Key Topics

Section 6822Section 14721Addition to Income20Section 6914Section 271(1)(c)14Section 26313Section 143(3)11Penalty11Section 69A10

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

ITA 212/RPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Sakshi Gopal Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 147Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 68

penalty proceedings u/s 271 AAB(1A) with the observations that the amount of investment made by the assessee for purchase of motorcycle in cash i.e. Rs.1,25,000/- is added to his total income treated as unexplained

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2

Section 153A10
Unexplained Cash Credit7
Unexplained Investment6

M/S. RUKMANI ENGINEERING WORKS, (NOW RUKMANI INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,,ODISHA vs. THE DY. CIT- CIRCLE- KORBA,, KORBA(CG)

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee firm being devoid and bereft of any merit is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 81/RPR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.81/Rpr/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Rukmani Engineering Works (Now Rukmani Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.) Mig-384, Svbp Nagar, Jamnipali, Korba (C.G.) Pan: Aaifr4667G

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 251Section 40

unexplained expenditure to the tune of Rs. 24,49,653/- was brought to record from the submission of the counsel of the appellant and addition to that extent made by the AO u/s 40(a)(ia) was modified to addition u/s 69C. The AO has not made any specific comment regarding penalty imposable on such addition. Rather, he treated

SUKHDEV SINGH JOSHI,JAGDALPUR, BASTAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, JAGDALPUR, JAGDALPUR

ITA 174/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 173 & 174/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) dated 17.02.2022, passed by Addl / Joint / Deputy / Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax / Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi, (in short “Ld. AR”). Sukhdev Singh Joshi vs. ITO, Ward, Jagdalpur 2. Since both the aforesaid appeals pertain to the same assessee, having common and interconnected issues, therefore, these appeals are heard together and taken

SUKHDEV SINGH JOSHI ,JAGDALPUR, BASTAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, JAGDALPUR, JAGDALPUR

ITA 173/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 173 & 174/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) dated 17.02.2022, passed by Addl / Joint / Deputy / Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax / Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi, (in short “Ld. AR”). Sukhdev Singh Joshi vs. ITO, Ward, Jagdalpur 2. Since both the aforesaid appeals pertain to the same assessee, having common and interconnected issues, therefore, these appeals are heard together and taken

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

In the result Ground No 8 of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 247/RPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

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 :

For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K.Singh, CIT-DR
Section 68

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are separately initiated.” 15.1 Based on observations of the ld. AO in para 7 & 8 of the assessment order ld. CIT-DR further submitted that there was an amount of Rs. 3,74,89,676.53/- shown as advance received from customers as liability, whereas in the immediate

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

In the result Ground No 8 of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 238/RPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

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 :

For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K.Singh, CIT-DR
Section 68

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are separately initiated.” 15.1 Based on observations of the ld. AO in para 7 & 8 of the assessment order ld. CIT-DR further submitted that there was an amount of Rs. 3,74,89,676.53/- shown as advance received from customers as liability, whereas in the immediate

DAYARAM AGRAWAL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/RPR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.258/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Dayaram Agrawal H-1, Shankar Nagar, Rajeev Nagar, Raipur-492 007 (C.G.) Pan: Acgpa8622C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Bikram Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 131ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

unexplained investment. The assessment in hands of assessee is on substantive basis since he is the direct complicit and beneficiary of this entire devise. In a separate order the same amount, is also added in the hands of Shri Dinesh Kumar Jain on protective basis. Penalty proceedings u/s 271

TOMAN SINGH SAHU,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

ITA 499/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.499/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Toman Singh Sahu H. No.1246, Vivekanand Ashram, Ram Kund Para, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Epyps2394L ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 7. In view of the above discussion and material available on record total income of the assessee is determined as under: Particulars Amount ( in Rs.) 3 Toman Singh Sahu Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) Total income as per return

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

ITA 356/RPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Amit M. Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

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

PAGADALA VELUGONDA REDDY, DURG,DURG vs. ACIT-1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 726/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Raipur05 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.726/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Pagadala Velugonda Reddy Lig 284, Hudco, Bhilai-490 009 (C.G.) Pan: Abmpv7318K

For Appellant: Shri Yash Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 69

unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act. 3. That aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee had filed first appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and detailed written submission a/w. documentary evidence were filed as submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. However, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal and did not adjudicate merits

SIKHA AGRAWAL, RAIGARH,RAIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RAIGARH, RAIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 235/RPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.235/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shikha Agrawal A-9, Ashirbadpuram Colony, Near Dhimrapur Chowk, Raigarh (C.G.)-496 554 Pan: Cjwpa0265J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Raigarh (C.G) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 271ASection 56(2)(x)Section 69Section 69A

Penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 are initiated separately. The amount of Rs.1,98,000/- paid in cash for purchase of property is treated as assessee's unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and treated as 4 Shikha Agrawal Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Raigarh assessee's income

RASHI STEEL AND POWER LIMITED,BILASPUR vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 73/RPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 73/Rpr/2021 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Rashi Steel & Power Ltd. Vs Acit Cf9, Rajeev Plaza, Bilaspur New Delhi Pan No. :Aaecr 6450 Q : Shri R.B.Doshi, 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 : 01/06/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/06/2023

For Respondent: Shri Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 68Section 69

unexplained investment for purchase of crusher plant made by illegal application of section 69 of the Act, as it is confirmed in the Assessment Order itself that the relevant investment is duly recorded in the books of account. 11. That the Learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.12

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

ITA 234/RPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

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) ..

For Appellant: Shri Amit M. Jain & Gagan Tiwari, Advs. &For Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153CSection 68

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

ITA 233/RPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

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) ..

For Appellant: Shri Amit M. Jain & Gagan Tiwari, Advs. &For Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153CSection 68

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

SHRI HARISH KUMAR CHHABADA,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1), RAIPUR (CG)

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

ITA 91/BIL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.91/Rpr/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69

unexplained investment of the assessee and made an addition of the same to his returned income. 4. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without success. Although it was the claim of the assessee before the CIT(Appeals) that the cash deposits of Rs.58.48 lac in his bank account was the unaccounted turnover that

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI vs. MANISH KUMAR MEHTA, HUF, DURG

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 342/RPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.342/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Manish Kumar Mehta Opportunity. Swami Atmanand English Medium School, Krishna Talkies Road, Risali, Bhilai (C.G.)-490 006 Pan: Aahhm3766Q ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pratik Bakliwal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

unexplained sources of investment under section 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271

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

ITA 267/BIL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

investment of Rs.25 lac that was made with the assessee company during the year under consideration, as under: Name of the Branch and Cheque No. Cheque date Amount (Rs.) No. of shares bank complete address Axis Bank Kolkata RTGS 23.07.2011 25,00,000 25,000 CO Nos.30 & 31/RPR/2015 Also, the investor company in order to dispel all doubts as regards

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

ITA 268/BIL/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

investment of Rs.25 lac that was made with the assessee company during the year under consideration, as under: Name of the Branch and Cheque No. Cheque date Amount (Rs.) No. of shares bank complete address Axis Bank Kolkata RTGS 23.07.2011 25,00,000 25,000 CO Nos.30 & 31/RPR/2015 Also, the investor company in order to dispel all doubts as regards

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

ITA 101/BIL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

investment of Rs.25 lac that was made with the assessee company during the year under consideration, as under: Name of the Branch and Cheque No. Cheque date Amount (Rs.) No. of shares bank complete address Axis Bank Kolkata RTGS 23.07.2011 25,00,000 25,000 CO Nos.30 & 31/RPR/2015 Also, the investor company in order to dispel all doubts as regards

AJAY KUMAR KANOJIA,DUBAI(UAE) vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

ITA 275/RPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 275/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Ajay Kumar Kanojia C/O. P.R Gupta & Co. A-233, Sector-19, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201 301 Pan: Aalpk4183B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Rai Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 203ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Act as there is no concealment of facts. 5. The ground No.5 of appeal is an additional ground which was not raised earlier before the first appellate authority. The assessing officer has determined tax payable of Rs.14,42,320 as mentioned in 3 Ajay Kumar Kanojia Vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Raipur the demand notice