SHRI GUNJAN KUMAR BIHANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3 (4), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the captioned appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.122/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Gunjan Kumar Bihani Ashoka Ratan, Khamhardih, Shankar Nagar, Raipur-492 009 (C.G) Pan: Ajupb5787C

124(3)(a) after elapse of time as stipulated in the said section, such categorical observations and the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, cannot be watered down, taking support from an earlier general order of Hon’ble Apex Court i.e., the judgment in the case of “NTPC”(supra). Consequently, I am expressing my view

M/S. G.P. INFRAVENTURES ,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(4), RAIPUR

The appeal of the department stands disposed off

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No.76/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), V M/S G.P. Infraventures, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, S Shree Tower, Shankar Nagar, Central Revenue Building, Raipur (C.G.) Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aanfg6074B (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) : (""यथ" / Respondent) (Ita No.94/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S G.P. Infraventures, V Income Tax Officer-1(4), Shree Tower, Shankar Nagar, S Raipur Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aanfg6074B (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of : 23.11.2023 7Pronouncement

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should be deleted or set aside?" 25 ITA 76 & 94/RPR/2020 G.P. Infraventures 4. The High Court, disagreeing with the Tribunal, held, that the provisions of Section 142 and sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 143 will have mandatory application in a case where the assessing officer in repudiation

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), RAIPUR vs. MESERS G P INFRAVENTURES, RAIPUR

The appeal of the department stands disposed off

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No.76/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), V M/S G.P. Infraventures, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, S Shree Tower, Shankar Nagar, Central Revenue Building, Raipur (C.G.) Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aanfg6074B (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) : (""यथ" / Respondent) (Ita No.94/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S G.P. Infraventures, V Income Tax Officer-1(4), Shree Tower, Shankar Nagar, S Raipur Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aanfg6074B (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of : 23.11.2023 7Pronouncement

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should be deleted or set aside?" 25 ITA 76 & 94/RPR/2020 G.P. Infraventures 4. The High Court, disagreeing with the Tribunal, held, that the provisions of Section 142 and sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 143 will have mandatory application in a case where the assessing officer in repudiation

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) ..

68 of the Income Tax act were bad in law and unjustified on the basis of following arguments: - 1. The assessee has duly discharged its onus to prove the Identity and creditworthiness of the investor as well as the genuineness of the transaction by furnishing all the details of the investor M/s Artline Fiscal Services (P) Ltd. (AFSPL). The details

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) ..

68 of the Income Tax act were bad in law and unjustified on the basis of following arguments: - 1. The assessee has duly discharged its onus to prove the Identity and creditworthiness of the investor as well as the genuineness of the transaction by furnishing all the details of the investor M/s Artline Fiscal Services (P) Ltd. (AFSPL). The details

SURENDRA KUMAR DAGA,RAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD - 36(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2013-14

68 of the Act was thus discharged by the assessee towards nature and source of credit and the extent of enquiry desired in a given case is left to the discretion of the A.O. Once the lenders have admitted having given the loan, no addition could have been made in the hands of the assessee as held in several judicial

PRAKASH CHAND JAIN, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 232/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Prakash Chand Jain Pro. Jain Borewell Ganj Road, Nawapara-Rajim, Dist. Raipur (C.G.)-493 881 Pan : Affpj6898B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

124(3)(a) of the Income Tax Act precludes the assessee from questioning the jurisdiction of the assessing officer, if he does not do so within 30 days of receipt of notice under Section 142 (1). 2. In the present case, the facts did not warrant the order made by the High Court. At the same time, this Court

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 :

Section 68 as is mentioned in the ground, ledger copy of amount paid for providing Bank Guarantee on behalf of Refratechnik Steel GmbH, copy of Bank Guarantee along with fixed deposit receipts are placed on Page No. 81 to 99 of the Paper Book, copy of agreement between Refratechnik Steel GmbH and the assessee for Bank Guarantee is placed

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 :

Section 68 as is mentioned in the ground, ledger copy of amount paid for providing Bank Guarantee on behalf of Refratechnik Steel GmbH, copy of Bank Guarantee along with fixed deposit receipts are placed on Page No. 81 to 99 of the Paper Book, copy of agreement between Refratechnik Steel GmbH and the assessee for Bank Guarantee is placed

DCIT,1(1), RAIPUR (CG) vs. SMT VIMLESH KUMAR SINGH, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member Dcit-1(1), Raipur Vs Late Shri Vijay Pal Singh, Through L/H Smt. Vimlesh Kumari Singh, Prop.M/S Manohar Engineering & M/S Sharda Engineering, Baikunth, District – Raipur Pan No. : Ahjps 0124 K (Appellant) .. Tsednepser Revenue By : Mrs. Shital Verma, Dr Assessee By : Shri K.P.Dewani, Ar Date Of Hearing : 10/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 15/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri N.S.Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Raipur, Dated 08.02.2013 For The Assessment Year 2006-2007. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :- “1. Whether In Law & On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,98,28,636/- Made By The Ao By Treating Long Term Capital Gain As Income From Undisclosed Sources.” 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Ao Observed That The Shares On Sale Of Which Ltcg Of Rs.1.95,39,611/- Was Shown & Exemption U/S.10(38) Of The Act Was Claimed Were Held Barely For Little More Than One Year To Qualify The Same As Long Term Capital Asset. The Cost Of The Shares Was Rs.2,69,400/- & Sale Consideration Was Rs.1,98,28,636/-. He

68.—Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 125 CTR (SC) 124 : (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) and McDowell & Co. Ltd. vs. CTO (1985) 47 CTR (SC) 126 : (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC) distinguished.” 15. The Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. Ravindra Sanghai (HUF), ITA No.698//Kol/2010, vide order dated 22.05.2012,wherein the shares of Multiplus

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. M/S R.R.ENERGY LTD.,, RAIGARH(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

section 133(6) which have been returned un-served in some of the cases. I have carefully perused the explanation submitted by the appellant in respect of cases where the notices remained unserved, the submissions of the appellant are found to be convincing. It is further observed that no further enquiry or investigation has been conducted

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. M/S R.R.ENERGY LTD.,, RAIGARH(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

section 133(6) which have been returned un-served in some of the cases. I have carefully perused the explanation submitted by the appellant in respect of cases where the notices remained unserved, the submissions of the appellant are found to be convincing. It is further observed that no further enquiry or investigation has been conducted

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. M/S R.R.ENERGY LTD.,, RAIGARH(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

section 133(6) which have been returned un-served in some of the cases. I have carefully perused the explanation submitted by the appellant in respect of cases where the notices remained unserved, the submissions of the appellant are found to be convincing. It is further observed that no further enquiry or investigation has been conducted

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. M/S R.R.ENERGY LTD.,, RAIGARH(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

section 133(6) which have been returned un-served in some of the cases. I have carefully perused the explanation submitted by the appellant in respect of cases where the notices remained unserved, the submissions of the appellant are found to be convincing. It is further observed that no further enquiry or investigation has been conducted

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. M/S R.R.ENERGY LTD.,, RAIGARH(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

section 133(6) which have been returned un-served in some of the cases. I have carefully perused the explanation submitted by the appellant in respect of cases where the notices remained unserved, the submissions of the appellant are found to be convincing. It is further observed that no further enquiry or investigation has been conducted

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. M/S R.R.ENERGY LTD.,, RAIGARH(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

section 133(6) which have been returned un-served in some of the cases. I have carefully perused the explanation submitted by the appellant in respect of cases where the notices remained unserved, the submissions of the appellant are found to be convincing. It is further observed that no further enquiry or investigation has been conducted

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. M/S R.R.ENERGY LTD.,, RAIGARH(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

section 133(6) which have been returned un-served in some of the cases. I have carefully perused the explanation submitted by the appellant in respect of cases where the notices remained unserved, the submissions of the appellant are found to be convincing. It is further observed that no further enquiry or investigation has been conducted

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) ..

68 and has quoted a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Daulatram Rawat Mull, (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC), where in it has been concluded that: "It is not enough for the assessing officer to brushed aside the explanation offered by the assessee but he should record reasons in writing as to why documents