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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1), RAIPUR vs. AVIRAL FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.13/Rpr/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Ito-4(1) Aviral Finance Pvt. Ltd. Raipur Ground Floor, Nalghar Chowk, Raipur – 492 001 [Pan: Aabcg 2701 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By Shri Praveen Khandelwal & Shri Praveen Goyal, Cas ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.07.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2023

143(3) dated 23.12.2019 for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. "Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,26,00,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act?" :: 2 :: 2. "Whether

ARUNA TIWARI,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 90/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Aruna Tiwari 762, Sundar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Adbpt4977B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

143(3) of the Act on 29.11.2017 with direction to make fresh assessment on specified issues by holding that the said order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to 3 Smt. Aruna Tiwari Vs. Pr. CIT-1, Raipur the interest of the revenue. The Ld. PCIT has failed to appreciate that the said assessment order has been

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BHILAI vs. MESERS STEELCO ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED, BHILAI

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.88/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

68,382/- made by the AO after taking into consideration that exorbitant amounts paid by the assessee as commission payments as compared to last year, by merely stating that the jurisdictional ITAT has given relief to other assessee without discussing the merits of the case? 2. Whether oh points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case

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

143(2) of the Act. 3. During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was observed by the AO that cash amounting to Rs. 86,74,500/- was over the year deposited in the saving bank A/c No. 11566963331 of the assessee held with State Bank of India, Branch: Bastar. As the assessee on being confronted failed to come forth

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

143(2) of the Act. In the circumstances, the assessment order passed by the A.O., Kolkata in defiance of prescribed law without holding jurisdiction over the assessee is fatal and non-est and the provisions of section 263 could not be utilised to improve upon such non- est order. The learned counsel thus contended that on this sole point

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 68 of the Act. Therefore, on this count itself the impugned addition Rs.10,53,000/- deserves to be deleted." We are of the considered view that as the bank account of an assessee cannot be held to be the 'books' of an assessee maintained for any previous year, thus no addition under Sec. 68

JOINT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE -I, BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD, BILASPUR(CG)

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury,Jm Sl.

143 nor on regular assessment. Rather, the refund was issued after giving effect to the order of the CIT(A), Bilaspur u/s.250 of the I. T. Act. Accordingly, clause (b) of sub section (1) of Section 244A is applicable for giving interest on refund due to the assessee company after giving effect to the order

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-RANGE-1,, BILASPUR vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED,, BILASPUR

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury,Jm Sl.

143 nor on regular assessment. Rather, the refund was issued after giving effect to the order of the CIT(A), Bilaspur u/s.250 of the I. T. Act. Accordingly, clause (b) of sub section (1) of Section 244A is applicable for giving interest on refund due to the assessee company after giving effect to the order

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 :

143(2) of the Act and assessment order was passed on 29.12.2019 by ITO-2(2), Bhilai after making addition of Rs. 39,09,000/- in the garb of unsecured loan treated as cash credits liable to be disallowed u/s 68 of the I.T. Act & Rs. 2,90,00,000/- on account of cash deposit during demonetisation which was treated

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

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

68 of the Act; therefore, the entire amount of share capital/premium of Rs.121.88 crore (approx.) received by it during the year under consideration was to be treated as unexplained cash credit within the meaning of the said section. Accordingly, the A.O. vide his order passed u/s. 143

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

143(3) on 28.12.2018 for all six assessment years. The assessing officer while passing the assessment order made addition 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

143(3) on 28.12.2018 for all six assessment years. The assessing officer while passing the assessment order made addition 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

143(3) on 28.12.2018 for all six assessment years. The assessing officer while passing the assessment order made addition 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

143(3) on 28.12.2018 for all six assessment years. The assessing officer while passing the assessment order made addition under section 68

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

143(3) on 28.12.2018 for all six assessment years. The assessing officer while passing the assessment order made addition under section 68

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 :

143(3) r.w.s. 147, Ld. AO made the addition of entire share application/ premium which were actually received in the PY 2008-09 & 2009-10 and only allotment was done in PY 2010-11, relevant to AY 2011-12. Thus, the very invocation of section 68

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

section 143(3), hence no order. Q3. Whether any intimation was given to you as per the 1st proviso to sec. 143(1)(a) before making adjustment to returned income and evidence thereof. If yes, copy of such intimation. Ans: Yes, intimation in terms of 1st proviso to sec. 143(1)(a) before making adjustment was given