C.G. BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED ,RAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(1), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee company is dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.300/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 C.G Buildcon Private Limited B-1, 3Rd Floor, C.G. Elite, Opp. Mandi Gate, Vidhan Sabha Road, Pandri (C.G.)-492 004 Pan: Aaccc5355P

68,50,234/- u/s 80(IB)(10) of the Act. Briefly, the appellant was engaged in a residential project namely C.G. Heights and claimed to be approved and developed with the consent of Nagarpalika Nigam, Raipur and the appellant claimed deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act, which was denied by the AO stating that the project was not completed

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

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

10. It was further stated by the assessee company that the Principal Officers/Directors of the 48 (sic) investor companies who were called upon to put up an appearance a/w supporting documents to substantiate the authenticity of their investments made with the assessee company, had filed before the A.O. requisite documents to confirm the transactions entered into between them

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 :

10. Although, as observed by me hereinabove, the deposit in tranches of the demonetized currency notes by the assessee in her bank account, i.e, after lapse of the specified time period allowed by the Central Government though raises serious doubts, but the same in my considered view would by no means suffice for stamping the same as the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), BILASPUR vs. M/S JAYEM HOLDING PVT. LTD., BILASPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the department in ITA no

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

23,00,000/-. It was the submission of Ld. AR 6 & CO No. 08/RPR/2018 that the assessee has duly submitted all the necessary information, evidence before the lower authorities, such evidence includes confirmations of accounts, Bank statements of the share applicants, Bank statement of the assessee company, Annual Report and an Audit Report of the Share subscribers, company master data

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

10. It was further stated by the assessee company that the Principal Officers/Directors of the 48 (sic) investor companies who were called upon to put up an appearance a/w supporting documents to substantiate the authenticity of their investments made with the assessee company, had filed before the A.O. requisite documents to confirm the transactions entered into between them

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

10. It was further stated by the assessee company that the Principal Officers/Directors of the 48 (sic) investor companies who were called upon to put up an appearance a/w supporting documents to substantiate the authenticity of their investments made with the assessee company, had filed before the A.O. requisite documents to confirm the transactions entered into between them

MESERS S R INGOSTS PRIVATE LIMITED ,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAIPUR

In the result Revised Ground no 4 of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.04/Rpr/2020 (Assessment Year: 2011-2012) M/S S R Ingots Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Cc-1, Raipur House No.16, Opp.Cg Gramin Bank, Choubey Colony, Raipur Pan No. :Aaics 5559 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ajoy Kumar Singh & Smt. Surbhi Jain, Ars राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 12/04/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

10,11,12,13,14,15,16,19 and 23. You have not given any findings as to why share capital received from these companies should be considered for addition to the total income. Further the Ld. ACIT CC-1 also pointed out in his letter that the name of S R Ingots Private Limited is nowhere reflecting

AGRAWAL INFRABUILD PRIVATE LIMITED ,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, RAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.10 & 11/Rpr/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Agrawal Infrabuild Private Limited, Vs Acit, Central Circle-Ii, Raipur 1St Floor, V.R.Plaza, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aafca 6636 C (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

10% in all the years reopened/assesed u/s 153A and has shown an income higher than the estimate of 8% as approved by Settlement Commission, Kolkata duly accepted by the revenue department, on same line of business in the assessee’s own case for AY 2004-05 to 2010-11. Accordingly, assessee has already shown a higher income

AGRAWAL INFRABUILD PRIVATE LIMITED ,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, RAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.10 & 11/Rpr/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Agrawal Infrabuild Private Limited, Vs Acit, Central Circle-Ii, Raipur 1St Floor, V.R.Plaza, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aafca 6636 C (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

10% in all the years reopened/assesed u/s 153A and has shown an income higher than the estimate of 8% as approved by Settlement Commission, Kolkata duly accepted by the revenue department, on same line of business in the assessee’s own case for AY 2004-05 to 2010-11. Accordingly, assessee has already shown a higher income

MESERS GOYAL ENERGY & STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

10. Now adverting to the adjudication of additional grounds of appeal and the Ground No. 3 of main grounds of appeal. The additional grounds of appeal relates to validity of approval under section 153D and Ground No. 3 of main grounds of appeal relates to validity of the additions under section 68 in absence of incriminating evidence found

MESERS GOYAL INFRAVENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

10. Now adverting to the adjudication of additional grounds of appeal and the Ground No. 3 of main grounds of appeal. The additional grounds of appeal relates to validity of approval under section 153D and Ground No. 3 of main grounds of appeal relates to validity of the additions under section 68 in absence of incriminating evidence found

MESERS GOYAL ENERGY & STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

10. Now adverting to the adjudication of additional grounds of appeal and the Ground No. 3 of main grounds of appeal. The additional grounds of appeal relates to validity of approval under section 153D and Ground No. 3 of main grounds of appeal relates to validity of the additions under section 68 in absence of incriminating evidence found

MESERS GOYAL ENERGY & STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

10. Now adverting to the adjudication of additional grounds of appeal and the Ground No. 3 of main grounds of appeal. The additional grounds of appeal relates to validity of approval under section 153D and Ground No. 3 of main grounds of appeal relates to validity of the additions under section 68 in absence of incriminating evidence found

MESERS GOYAL ENERGY & STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

10. Now adverting to the adjudication of additional grounds of appeal and the Ground No. 3 of main grounds of appeal. The additional grounds of appeal relates to validity of approval under section 153D and Ground No. 3 of main grounds of appeal relates to validity of the additions under section 68 in absence of incriminating evidence found

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

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

10. “Whether on the point of law and on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,59,00,000/-, thereby ignoring the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT(Central)-l Vs NRA Iron & Steel

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

Section 68 of the Act, wherein in absence of “1st proviso” to Sec. 68 of the Act that had been made available on the statute vide the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f 01.04.2013, no obligation was earlier cast upon the person, in whose name credit consisting of share application money, share capital, share premium or any such amount by whatever

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION)-1, RAIPUR vs. SHRI CHAITANY MAHAPRABHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHAN, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 235/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer, (Exemption)-1, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Chaitany Mahaprabhu Shikshan Sansthan 2, Jindal Niwas, Ramsagarpara, Raipur(C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aaits4845F ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal & Smt. Laxmi Sharma, Cas Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2022

Section 115BBC(3) of the Act. The aforesaid order of the ITAT, Delhi had thereafter been approved by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of DIT(E), Delhi Vs. Hans Raj Samarak Society (2013) 35 Taxman 642 (Delhi).” We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations concur with the view taken

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)

10 DCIT vs Balajee Loha Pvt. Ltd., Raipur lnfotech Pvt. Ltd. and has added this amount as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the I. T. Act. 4.2.2 In reply, the appellant has stated that it had discharged its onus u/s 68 with respect to the identity, credit worthiness of the share-applicant company and the genuineness of the transaction