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 :

carry PAN and address of creditors. AO has not caused any inquiry to be made directly from the creditor. The addition has been made on suspicion. It is fact that the creditors have deposited cash in their bank accounts. However during the period of de-notifaction of currency of Rs 500/- and 1000/- by the government, it compulsion for every

M/S TRIMURTHY FINVEST LIMITED,BILASPUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), BILASPUR

In the result, appeal of the assesse company being devoid and bereft of any merit is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

section 68, applicable w.e.f from AY 2013-13, not only is the assessee required to explain the source of share application money, but in case the applicant is a company, then the said applicant company is also required to explain the source of money in is handing out of which the amount of share application money was advanced

EAST WEST FINVEST INDIA LIMITED,BILASPUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), BILASPR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

section 68, applicable w.e.f from AY 2013-13, not only is the assessee required to explain the source of share application money, but in case the applicant is a company, then the said applicant company is also required to explain the source of money in is handing out of which the amount of share application money was advanced

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), RAIPUR vs. MESERS ARYAN BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR

In the result, both appeal of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee stand dismissed in terms of our observations

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

carried out through banking channel, impugned addition made on account such share capital and premium under section 68 was unjustified. 7. HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB Where question of genuineness of AND HARYANA investors who introduced share capital Principal Commissioner of and capacity of persons from whom Income-tax, Bathinda loan was taken and genuineness of V. transactions, had been considered

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), RAIPUR vs. M/S TRIPCO SERVICES PVT. LTD., , RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in terms of our observations above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.110/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

68 has been amended by Finance Act, 2012 inserting the sub-section 1 that source of source has to be proved in the cases of share application money ? 5. "Whether on the facts of the cases and in law, the CIT(A) is justified in replying on jurisdictional high court order in the case of ACIT Vs Venkateshwar (spat

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)

Loss account, copy of Income Tax return, Share Application Form, Memorandum of Article and Association, Certificate of Incorporation etc. of the investor companies. In addition, the 5 DCIT vs Balajee Loha Pvt. Ltd., Raipur assessee submitted copy of assessment order of M/s GIPL for the AY 2011-12, wherein the capital of Rs.23.21Cr was raised and the assessment was completed

SUBRAMANIAM SWAMINATHAN IYER, BHILAI,DURG vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHILAI, DURG

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.71/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Subramaniam Swaminathan Iyer 12-A/7, Nehru Nagar, Bhilai (C.G.)-490 020 Pan: Anwps2381P

forward as opening capital of AY 2012-13 included the inreased amount of Rs.1,25,00,000/-, which was effected outside the books, only in the balance sheet. According to the appellant, considering the effect in both the years, the entries in books are to the effect of reducing the creditors/credit balances by Rs.3,25,00,000/- and increasing

SUN AND SUN INFRAMETRIC PVT. LTD.,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.21/Rpr/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16)

loss of revenue as specified in Section 43CA of the Act. Sun & Sun Inframetric Pvt Ltd Vs. ACIT AY : 2015-2016 In the light of points raised, as noted above, the Revisional Commissioner alleged lack of application of mind by the Assessing Officer and absence of proper enquiry in this regard. The revisional proceedings were thus set in motion

M/S. SUMIT GLOBAL PVT. LTD.,RAIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 1, RAIGARH

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.70/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Sumit Global Pvt. Ltd. C/O Kanha Electricals & Electronics, Nanhu Nagar, Vijay Nagar, P.O. Kirodimalnagar, Raigargh (C.G.) Pan : Aaocs8271J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1, Raigarh (C.G.)

Loss Account (v) The assessee in respect of share application money of Rs. 86,00,000/- received from M/s Krishnakali Distributors Pvt Ltd has filed the following papers during the assessment proceeding and as additional evidence :- 1. Copy of accounts 2. Bank account of share applicants with following banks: HDFC Bank, Kolkata 3. ITR for AY 2014-15 4. Company

ASHOK KUMAR MALOO, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.308/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ashok Kumar Maloo Ground Floor, Halwai Line, Sadar Bazar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Adtpm9149C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

Loss Account, Balance Sheet for A.Y. 2017-18 6 Ashok Kumar Maloo Vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Raipur and attach herewith only computation of Income for the A.Y. 2017-18. 3. THAT the copy of all bank statement (CBI Saving A/c No. 1384550709 in the name of Ashok Kumar Malu & CBI Current A/c No. 1384502880 in the name M/s. Nemichand

M/S POORNACHAND AGRAWAL, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 104/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Pooranchand Agrawal C/O. Bagadia Enterprises, Near Shiv Talkies, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495001 Pan : Aaifp8483G

68, appex court observed as under: 6 M/s. Pooranchand Agrawal Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 “……. The expression 'the assessee offers an explanation means where the assessee offers no proper, reasonable and acceptable explanation as regards the sums found credited in the books maintained by the assesses……” 1. iv) Now , let us revert back to the facts of this case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. MESERS SHREE JAGDAMBA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 37 To 42/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15)

carried out as an alternative measure. 17. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) after taking note of the submissions and the evidences placed before him exonerated the assessee from the additions made under s.68 of the Act as well as 2(22)(e) of the Act. The relevant operative para of the order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. MESERS SHREE JAGDAMBA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 37 To 42/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15)

carried out as an alternative measure. 17. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) after taking note of the submissions and the evidences placed before him exonerated the assessee from the additions made under s.68 of the Act as well as 2(22)(e) of the Act. The relevant operative para of the order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. MESERS SHREE JAGDAMBA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 37 To 42/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15)

carried out as an alternative measure. 17. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) after taking note of the submissions and the evidences placed before him exonerated the assessee from the additions made under s.68 of the Act as well as 2(22)(e) of the Act. The relevant operative para of the order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. MESERS SHREE JAGDAMBA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 37 To 42/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15)

carried out as an alternative measure. 17. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) after taking note of the submissions and the evidences placed before him exonerated the assessee from the additions made under s.68 of the Act as well as 2(22)(e) of the Act. The relevant operative para of the order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. MESERS SHREE JAGDAMBA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 37 To 42/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15)

carried out as an alternative measure. 17. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) after taking note of the submissions and the evidences placed before him exonerated the assessee from the additions made under s.68 of the Act as well as 2(22)(e) of the Act. The relevant operative para of the order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. MESERS SHREE JAGDAMBA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 37 To 42/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15)

carried out as an alternative measure. 17. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) after taking note of the submissions and the evidences placed before him exonerated the assessee from the additions made under s.68 of the Act as well as 2(22)(e) of the Act. The relevant operative para of the order

SHRI SHAKTIDHAM INFRAVENTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,BILASPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , BILASPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 71/Rpr/2020) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16)

loss in trading account was accepted and dropped. 6. The PCIT thus alleged that the impugned order of AO is erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue on the grounds of inadequate enquiries with reference to Explanation (2) to Section 263 of the Act. 7. Aggrieved by the revisional order the PCIT, the assessee