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

section 133(6) to M/S Third Eye Vinimay Pvt and M/S Moon Shine Mercantile Pvt Ltd Bilaspur both these notices were served. The AO, passing the assessment order or submitting the remand report, has not disputed the correctness of the submission of the assessee that no fresh capital was received by the share applicant company namely M/S Third

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 of the Act that was applicable from A.Y.2013-14, the assessee company was not only required 18 M/s. Purvi Finvest Limited Vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1) to explain the source of the share application money but was also statutorily obligated to explain the source of the money out of which the investor companies had made the respective investments

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 :

68 of the Act, AY 2011-12 was beyond the (1+6) mandate of Section 147 r.w.s 149 of the Act, was passed without observing the principles of natural justice and was barred by limitation (Time barred). IV) Notice U/S 133

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)

133 taxmann.com 31 investment in assessee companies, (Delhi - Trib.] Assessing Officer without questioning material submitted by assessee could not have added said share premium to income of assessee under section 68

JCIT, (OSD), CIRCLE 1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. PLATINUM WORLD HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the appellant is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.130/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd), Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

133(6) were issued by the Assessing Officer. The Supreme Court in CIT v. Orissa Corporation (159 ITR 78) held that where the appellant provides complete details and the Assessing Officer fails to pursue further enquiry, the addition under section 68

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 of the Act that was applicable from A.Y.2013-14, the assessee company was not only required to explain the source of the share application money but was also statutorily obligated to explain the source of the money out of which the investor companies had made the respective investments. The CIT(Appeals) was of the view that

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 of the Act that was applicable from A.Y.2013-14, the assessee company was not only required to explain the source of the share application money but was also statutorily obligated to explain the source of the money out of which the investor companies had made the respective investments. The CIT(Appeals) was of the view that

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)

68 of the Act. That having been done, the First Appellate Authority was fully justified in taking the view that it was open to the department to take recourse of Section 131 or Section 133

MESERS DHARIWAL BROTHERS,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.186/Rpr/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14) बनाम/ M/S. Dhariwal Brothers, Income Tax Officer- C/O. Raymond Retail Shop, Ward (3)(1), Raipur Vs. Jeewan Bima Marg, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfd 6404 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) ..

133 (6) was served but not responded. The learned Counsel further referred to several judicial precedents for the proposition that where the repayment has been made, the addition under Section 68

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

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

section 68. Since the assessee had provide the primary documents and 12 explanation to the AO, if there was any doubt or further explanation was required the AO should have made further enquiry, just because the AO have an report from the investigation wing which also have no substantial mention about the investor M/s Lovely Suppliers

SARVESH BARDIA,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, RAJNANDGAON

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.299/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sarvesh Bardia Bardia Niwas, Sadar Bazar, Rajnandgaon (C.G.)-491 441 Pan: Aqbpb3485F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

68 of the Act. That having been done, the First Appellate Authority was fully justified in taking the view that it was open to the department to take recourse of Section 131 or Section 133

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

133(6) issued to them return back?" 3. "Whether on the facts of the cases and in law, the CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,65,05,000/- on account of share application money received from bogus companies those do not have net worth to make investment and no dividend has been received from these

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR vs. M/S OMAX MINERALS PVT. LTD. GADUMARIA, RAIGARH

In the result appeal ITA No

68 of the Act. That having 10 & CO No.09/RPR/2018 been done the First Appellate Authority was fully justified in taking the view that it was open to the department to take recourse of Section 131 or Section 133

VALLABH CHANDAK,MAHASAMUND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD MAHASAMUND, MAHASAMUND

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.104/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Vallabh Chandak Pro. M/S. Laxmi Pharma Purana Mandi Road, Ganjpara, Mahasamund (C.G.)-493 445 Pan : Akhpc3415A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Ward-Mahasumand (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

68 be deleted. 3 Vallabh Chandak Vs. ITO, Ward Mahasumand 3) Without prejudice to ground nos. 1 & 2, that CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating on the detailed submissions given by the assessee on charging income-tax as per provisions of section 115BBE (1) of the Act @ 60% on the transactions made in the F.Y. 2016/17 or on transactions

UMIYA BOARD AND PAPER MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.790/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Umiya Board & Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. Shree Ishwar Saw Mill Compound, New Timber Market, Fafadih, Raipur-492 009 Pan: Aaacu4746N

section 68 is uncalled for, illegal and bad in law as well as on facts. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that additions cannot be made merely on suspicion, conjectures and assumptions, particularly when the shareholders responded to notices issued to them u/s 133

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.)

133(6) of the Act either remained unserved or were not complied with. Also, the fact that the assessee company had, despite specific directions, failed to produce before him for necessary examination the directors of the Kolkata-based investor companies, which, as per the report of the Inspector, were not available at their respective addresses as was provided

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -I, RAIPUR vs. LORD BUDDHA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.188 To 193/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013 To 2017-2018) Acit, Central Circle-1, Raipur(Cg) Vs M/S Lord Buddha Educational Society, M/S Raipur Institute Of Medical Sciences (Rims), Gram Godhi, Bhansoj Road, Office Nh-6, Raipur (Cg) Pan No. :Aaaal 3913 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

68,47,635/- out of the total addition of 3,59,80,960/- made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of DVO report.” 6. Brief Facts:- All these appeals have arisen out of common order of the LD CIT(A)-3, Bhopal on a common assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the IT Act., the brief

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -I, RAIPUR vs. LORD BUDDHA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.188 To 193/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013 To 2017-2018) Acit, Central Circle-1, Raipur(Cg) Vs M/S Lord Buddha Educational Society, M/S Raipur Institute Of Medical Sciences (Rims), Gram Godhi, Bhansoj Road, Office Nh-6, Raipur (Cg) Pan No. :Aaaal 3913 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

68,47,635/- out of the total addition of 3,59,80,960/- made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of DVO report.” 6. Brief Facts:- All these appeals have arisen out of common order of the LD CIT(A)-3, Bhopal on a common assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the IT Act., the brief

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -I, RAIPUR vs. LORD BUDDHA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.188 To 193/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013 To 2017-2018) Acit, Central Circle-1, Raipur(Cg) Vs M/S Lord Buddha Educational Society, M/S Raipur Institute Of Medical Sciences (Rims), Gram Godhi, Bhansoj Road, Office Nh-6, Raipur (Cg) Pan No. :Aaaal 3913 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

68,47,635/- out of the total addition of 3,59,80,960/- made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of DVO report.” 6. Brief Facts:- All these appeals have arisen out of common order of the LD CIT(A)-3, Bhopal on a common assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the IT Act., the brief