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

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

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

money by earing the interest income on it. Hence, the total cash deposited of Rs.2,14,00,000/- is added back in the total income of the assessee as per provisions of Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with section 115BBE of the Act. Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated for concealment

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are being initiated separately for concealment.” 3. As evident from the aforesaid, the A.O had made addition u/s.69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) with regard to unexplained money

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 :

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

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 :

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

BEERASWAMY YOGESHWAR MUDALIAR, AMBIKAPUR,AMBIKAPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, AMBIKAPUR, AMBIKAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.36/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Beeraswamy Yogeshwar Mudaliar Ward No.4, Gandhinagar, Veer Sawarkar Marg, P.O. Ambikapur, Dist. Surguja-497 001 Pan: Bnxpm2592L

271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated, but after rectifying u/s. 154, this penalty does not attract. In response to the notice u/s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961 the assessee filed return of his income on 24-04-2018 vide Ack. No.612516340240418 showing total taxable salary income of Rs.3,02,680/- is accepted, and therefore, the order passed

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

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

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

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

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

VINOD KUMAR SONI, AMBIKAPUR,AMBIKAPUR vs. ADDL/JCIT(A)-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.18/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vinod Kumar Soni Moulviya Bandh, Namanakala, Chhattisgarh-497 001 Pan: Bukps0274H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Addl./Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax(A)-1, Chandigarh. ……""यथ" / Respondent

Unexplained Income/Money). Ld. AO has made addition without considering the entire facts of the case. Hence, addition made is bad in Law, against natural justice and uncalled for and may kindly be deleted. 2. That on the facts and on the circumstances of the case, Ld. Assessing Officer determined the penalty proceedings U/s 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c) & 271F

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

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

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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)BHILAI, BHILAI vs. MESSERS SHREE PARVATI SCRAP PROCESSOR PRIVATE LIMITED, BHILAI

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.205/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) which is premature. Ground 7 is against levy of interest which is consequential of main addition. These are disposed. 4.0 The appeal is allowed.” 17. At the threshold, we may herein observe that the addition/disallowance made by the AO of the entire amount of purchases and sales disclosed by the assessee company in its profit

INCOME TAX OFFICER- 1(1), BHILAI vs. M/S AVNI COLONIZERS PVT. LTD, BHILAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross-objection filed by the assessee are disposed off in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.59/Rpr/2020 Co No. 03/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

u/s. 133(6) to all subscribers. Except two persons namely Shri Anand Tawari and Shri Dilip Bhutda all the other persons have replied to the notice and furnished copy Of Income tax return, computation of income and bank statement. These persons are either the relatives of the directions or acquaintances. Therefore, there is no doubt about the identity and genuineness

CHHATTISGARH METALIKS AND ALLOYS PVT. LTD.,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -3(3), 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.114/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Chhattisgarh Metaliks & Alloys Private Limited Mohini B-5, Merlin Jayashree Vihar, Mandi Gate, Pandri Tarai, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aadcc9242J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(3), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

271(1)(c) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 08.07.2019 for the assessment year 2015-16. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1.That CIT Appeals-NFAC has erred in both fact and in law in confirming the penalty of Rs.10,95,149/- made by Assessing Officer