SHRI ASHIT KUMAR DEY,JAGDALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAGDALPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood () & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai (Accountantmember) I.T.A. No. 119/Rpr/2018 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Ashit Kumar Dey The Income Tax Officer Uttam Kumar Dey, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Fish Market, Sanjay Behind Khankar Market,Jagdalpur, Talkies,Civil Lines, Bastar - 494 001 Jagdalpur(C.G.) Pan No. Ajxpd4157D (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri S. R. Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Shri G. N. Singh, D.R Date Of Hearing : 07/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09/06/2022

5 Ashit Kumar Dey V.ITO sum so credited may be held as an unexplained cash credit within the meaning of Sec. 68 of the Act. Notably, section 68 of the Act would come into play only in a situation “where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee……..” (emphasis supplied by us). However, as the bank

HARJINDAR SINGH BAL,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), BHILAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 57/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Harjindar Singh Bal Ward- No.29, Hospital Colony, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan : Adepb7178F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bhilai (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for initiation of reassessment proceedings was mechanical and granted without application of mind." 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y.2010-11 on 14.10.2010, declaring an income of Rs. 7,01,600/-. On the basis of certain information, viz. (i) that the assessee despite absence of liquid

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

68 of the I.T. Act. Aggrieved by the said assessment order passed u/s 143(3) dated 25.03.2015, Third Eye Vinimay has preferred an appeal before the Ld. Jurisdictional CIT(A), however while the appeal with the 1st appellate authority was pending, the total demand raised by the Assessing Officer for Rs. 5

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 :

5. That the both the lower authorities erred in holding that the amendment to section 68 introduced by Finance Act, 2012, was retrospective in nature and thus, adding the share capital proceeds in the hands of the assessee instead of individual shareholders. 8 6. That the Ld. AO violated the principles of natural justice by relying on statements

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

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

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 :

11. In view of above discussion, we set aside the orders of lower authorities and delete the addition of Rs 12,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit. Thus, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. In fine, there is no positive material to infer that the laons were

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)

11. Further, the ld. AR of the assessee placed reliance on the decision of CIT Vs. M/s Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd., passed in Income Tax Appeal No.1433 of 2014, order dated 5th July, 2017, and drew our attention to para 5 to 7, which read as under :- 5] The Assessing Officer added Rs.95 lakhs as income under Section 68

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

11. The ld AR for the assessee submits that the material available on record would demonstrate that the JCIT has granted approval under section 153D in a casual and mechanical manner and without any application of mind. As evident from the communication made by A.O. to the JCIT dated 14.12.2018. The AO in the said letter neither makes

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

11. The ld AR for the assessee submits that the material available on record would demonstrate that the JCIT has granted approval under section 153D in a casual and mechanical manner and without any application of mind. As evident from the communication made by A.O. to the JCIT dated 14.12.2018. The AO in the said letter neither makes

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

11. The ld AR for the assessee submits that the material available on record would demonstrate that the JCIT has granted approval under section 153D in a casual and mechanical manner and without any application of mind. As evident from the communication made by A.O. to the JCIT dated 14.12.2018. The AO in the said letter neither makes

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

11. The ld AR for the assessee submits that the material available on record would demonstrate that the JCIT has granted approval under section 153D in a casual and mechanical manner and without any application of mind. As evident from the communication made by A.O. to the JCIT dated 14.12.2018. The AO in the said letter neither makes

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

11. The ld AR for the assessee submits that the material available on record would demonstrate that the JCIT has granted approval under section 153D in a casual and mechanical manner and without any application of mind. As evident from the communication made by A.O. to the JCIT dated 14.12.2018. The AO in the said letter neither makes

MITESH SINGHANIA,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2) RAIPUR, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.410/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Mitesh Singhania Singhania Bhawan, Subhas Road, Near Telghani Naka, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Avops1474P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur (C.G) ……""यथ" / Respondent

68,946/-, the break- up of Items of Exempt income S. No. 5 Others has been tabulated below which includes Exempt income of Rs. 7,41,718/- in the issue. Further, the relevant extract of 154 Return and Original return has been reproduced below: Full Copies of Original return and 154 Return has also been attached as Annex-2. 5

PRIYESH SINGHANIA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.462/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Priyesh Singhania 730/1, Radha Kunj, Opposite Vip Guest House, Pahuna, Shankar Nagar Main Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aoups7838A ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

68,946/-, the break-up of Items of Exempt income S. No. 5 Others has been tabulated below which includes Exempt income of Rs. 7,41,718/- in the issue. Further, the relevant extract of 154 Return and Original return has been reproduced below: Full Copies of Original return and 154 Return has also been attached as Annex

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

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

11. Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.2,59,00,000/-, thereby without considering and distinguishing the ratio of the judgment of the cases such as Rameshwar Prasad Bagla 68 ITR 653(Allahabad) & Homi Vs CIT 41 ITR 135, 142 by (Supreme Court

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) ..

section 153A(1) and therefore bad in law. 3. Without prejudice to above: On the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the order of the A.O., wherein the IA.O. has· erred In using the reports of investigation conducted behind the back of the assessee by not providing the same during