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

129 of the Act was issued and the assessee has not demanded for previous proceeding (i.e. issuance of notice u/ s 143(2) of the Act) during the assessment proceeding. Therefore, the assessment proceeding was continued from the stage at which the proceeding was transferred by the ITO-I (1), Raipur. 3. In respect of clarification on what basis

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 :

129 was issued on 01/11/2019. Notice under section 142(1) along with query letter was issued on 04/10/2019 & 02/11/2019 The assessee was queried to explain the sources of his investment made during the financial year 01/04/2016 to 31/03/2017 and justify the same with documentary evidence. Notices u/s 133(6) were issued to various banks to furnish bank statements

SMT. SEEMA AGRAWAL,RAIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD -I, RAIGARH

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.179/Rpr/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Seema Agrawal, Vs Ito, Ward-1, Raigarh Sewa Kunj Road, Near Girls College, Raigarh (C.G.) Pan No. : Affpa 4990 K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) ..

68 discharged. No enquiry whatsoever by the AC) and the onus never shifted back to the assessee. In view of this, no addition could have been made. Reliance on: - i) CIT vs Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) (PN 103 to 108 of PB). ii) CIT vs Metachem Industries

SHRI SHRI SHIV SHANKAR AGRAWAL,KORBA(CG) vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, KORBA(CG)

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 270/Rpr/2016) (Assessment Year: 2008-09)

129 0106 (1964) 52 ITR 2 ITO vs. Murlidhar Hon’ble Supreme 130 to Bhagwan Das 0335 Court of India 146 8 Shri Shiv Shankar Agrawal 3 Bharat Sanchar NigamLtd. (2006) 282 ITR Hon’ble Supreme 147 to ANR.vs. Union of 0273 Court of India 177 India &Ors. 4 Installment Supply (Pvt.) AIR 1976 SC Hon’ble Supreme

M/S SCC INVESTMENT ,RAIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - I, RAIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

68 discharged. No enquiry whatsoever by the AC) and the onus never shifted back to the assessee. In view of this, no addition could have been made. Reliance on: - 4 i) CIT vs Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) (PN 103 to 108 of PB). ii) CIT vs Metachem Industries

SANJOG JHABAK L/H OF LATE GAUTAM CHAND JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

129 and any period during which any proceeding under this section is stayed by an order or injunction of any court shall be excluded.” As is discernible on a perusal of Section 263 of the Act, the Pr. CIT may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that

SANKET JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

129 and any period during which any proceeding under this section is stayed by an order or injunction of any court shall be excluded.” As is discernible on a perusal of Section 263 of the Act, the Pr. CIT may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that

SANJOG JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

129 and any period during which any proceeding under this section is stayed by an order or injunction of any court shall be excluded.” As is discernible on a perusal of Section 263 of the Act, the Pr. CIT may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that

SAMPAT LAL JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

129 and any period during which any proceeding under this section is stayed by an order or injunction of any court shall be excluded.” As is discernible on a perusal of Section 263 of the Act, the Pr. CIT may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that

SMT. PUSHPA JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

129 and any period during which any proceeding under this section is stayed by an order or injunction of any court shall be excluded.” As is discernible on a perusal of Section 263 of the Act, the Pr. CIT may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that

SMT. TILOTTAMA JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

129 and any period during which any proceeding under this section is stayed by an order or injunction of any court shall be excluded.” As is discernible on a perusal of Section 263 of the Act, the Pr. CIT may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that

SMT. SUSHILA DEVI JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

129 and any period during which any proceeding under this section is stayed by an order or injunction of any court shall be excluded.” As is discernible on a perusal of Section 263 of the Act, the Pr. CIT may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that

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 68 are uncalled for and hence, deleted. The appellant gets relief of Rs. 12,71,00,000/- in A.Y 2006-07 and Rs.6,51,50,000/- in A.Y 2007-08 23. 10. Ground Nos.3 to 5 in appeals of Revenue for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 and ground Nos.1 to 4 in appeals for assessment

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 68 are uncalled for and hence, deleted. The appellant gets relief of Rs. 12,71,00,000/- in A.Y 2006-07 and Rs.6,51,50,000/- in A.Y 2007-08 23. 10. Ground Nos.3 to 5 in appeals of Revenue for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 and ground Nos.1 to 4 in appeals for assessment

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 68 are uncalled for and hence, deleted. The appellant gets relief of Rs. 12,71,00,000/- in A.Y 2006-07 and Rs.6,51,50,000/- in A.Y 2007-08 23. 10. Ground Nos.3 to 5 in appeals of Revenue for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 and ground Nos.1 to 4 in appeals for assessment

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 68 are uncalled for and hence, deleted. The appellant gets relief of Rs. 12,71,00,000/- in A.Y 2006-07 and Rs.6,51,50,000/- in A.Y 2007-08 23. 10. Ground Nos.3 to 5 in appeals of Revenue for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 and ground Nos.1 to 4 in appeals for assessment

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 68 are uncalled for and hence, deleted. The appellant gets relief of Rs. 12,71,00,000/- in A.Y 2006-07 and Rs.6,51,50,000/- in A.Y 2007-08 23. 10. Ground Nos.3 to 5 in appeals of Revenue for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 and ground Nos.1 to 4 in appeals for assessment

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 68 are uncalled for and hence, deleted. The appellant gets relief of Rs. 12,71,00,000/- in A.Y 2006-07 and Rs.6,51,50,000/- in A.Y 2007-08 23. 10. Ground Nos.3 to 5 in appeals of Revenue for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 and ground Nos.1 to 4 in appeals for assessment

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 68 are uncalled for and hence, deleted. The appellant gets relief of Rs. 12,71,00,000/- in A.Y 2006-07 and Rs.6,51,50,000/- in A.Y 2007-08 23. 10. Ground Nos.3 to 5 in appeals of Revenue for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 and ground Nos.1 to 4 in appeals for assessment