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

3 Ashit Kumar Dey V.ITO 50,000/- to the same. Accordingly, the AO vide his order passed u/s 144 of the Act, dated 26.12.2011 determined the income of the assessee at Rs.86,74,500/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT (Appeals) but without any success. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order

FIVE STARCONSTRUCTION COMPANY,BHILAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), BHILAI

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.45/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Five Star Construction Company Plot No.96-97, Light Industrial Area, Chawani Chowk, Bhilai (C.G)-490026 Pan : Aaaff4316L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

68 of the Act of 1961 straightway merely because of the reason that the genuineness of the transaction shown in the heading of the Sundry Creditors was not found genuine. 18 Five Star Construction Company Vs. DCIT-1(1), Bhilai 13. In view of the above reasons, following Section 145(3) the assessing officer should have proceeded u/s 144

MARUTI CLEAN COAL AND POWER LTD.,RAIPUR vs. PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 55/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Maruti Clean Coal & Power Ltd. Ward No.42, Building No.14, Civil Lines, Near Income Tax Colony, Chhattisgarh-492 001. Pan : Aadcm4810C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By :Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms. Ananya Kapoor & Ms. Soumya Singh, Advocates. Revenue By :Shri P. K Mishra, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2022

Section 68 of the Act. 7. The assessee being aggrieved with the order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s. 263 of the Act, dated 27.03.2021 has carried the matter in appeal before us. 8. We have heard the Ld. Authorized representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1), RAIPUR vs. M/S SUPER IRON AND STEEL PVT LTD.,, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and Cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.261/Rpr/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Acit-4(1), Raipur Vs M/S Super Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd., Pritpal Farm House, Vip Road, Raipur(C.G.) Pan No. : Aaics 2579 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) & Cross Objection No.13/Rpr/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.261/Rpr/2017) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2010-2011) M/S Super Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit-4(1), Raipur Pritpal Farm House, Vip Road, Raipur(C.G.) Pan No. : Aaics 2579 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

3) of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have held that the order passed by the Ld.AO under section 144 of the Act is bad in law, highly illegal, highly unjustified and untenable and hence, it is requested that the assessment order may please be quashed and set aside. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances

MALANI HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed, in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 316/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2013-14)

144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 28/03/2022 is illegal and bad in law. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 28/03/2021 is illegal and bad in law as per first proviso to section 147 of the Act. 3. That on the facts and circumstances

NAVRATAN JEWELLERS, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of over aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 127/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

68, 69, and 69A of the Act and tax under section 115BBE was made without any proper basis and in complete disregard of the facts and evidence on record. The assessment was illegal, invalid, contrary to law, and liable to be quashed rather than remanded. The order of CIT(A) is, therefore, unsustainable and requires to be set aside

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2),, RAIPUR vs. SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL, NEORA, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.15/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Rajendra Kumar Agrawal, M/S. Amit Chawal Udyog Neora, Tilda, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Acipa5919L ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By :S/Shri G.S. Agrawal & N.C Gupta, Ar’S Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr

section 69C on the basis of GP ratio is unjustified?" 9. Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the ratio of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT-II vs. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P.) Ltd. reported in [2015] 56 taxmann.com 286(Delhi) held

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-MAHASAMUND, MAHASAMUND vs. SMT. NIRMALA DEVI SHRISHRIMAL, MAHASAMUND

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.197/Rpr/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Income Tax Officer, Vs Smt. Nirmala Devi Shrishrimal, Ward-Mahasamund, 31, M.B. Building, Gandhi Chowk, Chhattisgarh Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh Pan No. : Ajgps 0562 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Sh. Amit M. Jain, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Sh. Simran Bhullar, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Present Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeals Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 29.08.2023 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case Whether The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.3,12,98,657/- U/S 68 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Without Calling For Remand Report From The Ao On The Issue Of Unexplained Increase In Capital U/S 68 Of The Act. 2. Any Other Grounds That May Be Adduced At The Time Of Hearing. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Assessee Is An Individual Has Filed Her Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19 On 30Th March, 2019, Showing A Total Income Of Rs.7,03,830/-. The Case Of Assessee Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Assessment Under E- Assessment Scheme, 2019 On The Issue Of Share Capital/Other Capital.

144 read with section 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act by the AO. Learned AO has made certain calculations regarding the increase in the share capital of the assessee and after making such calculations learned AO arrived at a conclusion that a sum of Rs.3,12,98,657/- was unexplained cash credit withing the meaning of section

DINESH KUMAR DIXIT, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.167/Rpr/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dinesh Kumar Dixit Vs Income Tax Officer 1, Dixit Bhawan, K.K. Road Ward-3(4) Moudhapara, Raipur-492 001 (Cg) Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Actpd 0023H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारितीती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Prafulla Pendse, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr-Dr सुनवाई ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/08/2023 घोषणाणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 20.03.2023, Arose On The Issues Raised Against The Order Of Assessing Officer Framed U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 27.11.2019. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That The Order Is Bad In Law As Well As On Facts As The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Ao In Making Addition Of Rs.96,43,971/- Under The Income Tax Act, 1961Contrary To The Provisions Of Income Tax Act. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining Addition Of Rs.70,31,100/- In Respect Of Alleged Cash Deposits In Bank Account During The Period Of Demonetization, When The Same Is Same At Variance With The Actual Figures Recorded In The Books Of Accounts.

68 is bad in law as the section does not cover cash deposits made in bank account, therefore, the same is liable to be deleted. 4. That the invocation of Section 115BBE is itself bad in law and also invalid because the same is not applicable for the AY 2017-18, more so when the tax audit report

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR PATEL,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 212/Rpr/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18)

3) r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144B dated 26.03.2022 is illegal a bad in law, as the same ought to have been passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. While deliberating upon this issue, on being queried about the status of the quantum addition u/s 68 in the present case, Ld. AR informed that the same is challenged

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1), BHILAI, DURG vs. BHILAI JAYPEE CEMENT LTD., BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No.241/Rpr/2023) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax 1(1), V Bhilai Jaypee Cement Ltd, Bhilai, Durg S Bsp Premises, Slag Yard Road (Opp Sector 4 Nmoh), Bhilai Pan: Aadcb1675Q (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri. R.B. Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri. Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 25-10-2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of : 30-10-2023 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am:

144 r.w.s of the Acton the ground that it was a mere change of opinion of the Assessing Officer whereas the case of Yuvraj v/s Union of India of Hon'ble Bombay High Court vide 315 ITR 84 (Bombay) (2009) 225 CTR 283 (Bombay) has held that "points not decided while passing assessment order under section 143(3

VISHAL BUILDERS, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.263/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vishal Builders 7/619, Gawri Bhawan, Fafadih Naka, Raipur-492001(C.G.) Pan : Aaefv1401G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Raipur, C.G.

68,296 0.36% 13,06,644 1.06% on secured loan 8 Vishal Builders vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) To salary 14,25,700 1.01% 24,03,790 1.29% 36,38,417 2.95% expenses 10. Considering the aforesaid facts, we find substance in the claim of the Ld. AR that the comparative analysis of the financial statements

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

144 r.w.s.147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 27.11.2018 for the assessment year 2012-13. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: “1. That order of CIT(A) is bad in law, illegal and void-ab-initio. 2. That CIT(A) has erred in confirming jurisdictional defect done while

ASHOK KUMAR WADHWANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.117 &118/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17 Ashok Kumar Wadhwani, Ujwal Udyog, Sinodha, Neora, Tilda, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aahpw1400B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

section 145(3) of the L.T.Act. For the reasons detailed above, the purchases recorded in the books of account of the assessee amounting to Rs.2,87,51,400/- are held to be bogus and 25% of such purchase amount works out of Rs.71,87,850/- is hereby added to the total income of the assessee in respect of transaction

ASHOK KUMAR WADHWANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.117 &118/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17 Ashok Kumar Wadhwani, Ujwal Udyog, Sinodha, Neora, Tilda, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aahpw1400B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

section 145(3) of the L.T.Act. For the reasons detailed above, the purchases recorded in the books of account of the assessee amounting to Rs.2,87,51,400/- are held to be bogus and 25% of such purchase amount works out of Rs.71,87,850/- is hereby added to the total income of the assessee in respect of transaction

KAMLESH KUMAR KESHARWANI,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.122, 123 & 124/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani 112, Janta Colony, Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aewpk6876Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.135, 136 & 138/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Central)-1, Raipur (C.G.)

68,750/- 10.12.2012 Corporation, Raipur 5. M/s. Shiv Shankar 37,70,000/- 4,71,250/- 11.12.2012 Chawal Udyog, Raipur 6. M/s. Hardha Agency 77,60,000/- 5,35,000/- 27.11.2012 Total 14,41,32,250/- 7 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani Vs. ACIT-1(1), Raipur ITA Nos. 122 to 124/RPR/2024 ITA Nos. 135, 136 & 138/RPR/2024 6. The A.O observed that

KAMLESH KUMAR KESHARWANI,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.122, 123 & 124/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani 112, Janta Colony, Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aewpk6876Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.135, 136 & 138/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Central)-1, Raipur (C.G.)

68,750/- 10.12.2012 Corporation, Raipur 5. M/s. Shiv Shankar 37,70,000/- 4,71,250/- 11.12.2012 Chawal Udyog, Raipur 6. M/s. Hardha Agency 77,60,000/- 5,35,000/- 27.11.2012 Total 14,41,32,250/- 7 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani Vs. ACIT-1(1), Raipur ITA Nos. 122 to 124/RPR/2024 ITA Nos. 135, 136 & 138/RPR/2024 6. The A.O observed that

DCIT(CENTRAL)-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. KALMESH KUMAR KESHARWANI, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.122, 123 & 124/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani 112, Janta Colony, Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aewpk6876Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.135, 136 & 138/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Central)-1, Raipur (C.G.)

68,750/- 10.12.2012 Corporation, Raipur 5. M/s. Shiv Shankar 37,70,000/- 4,71,250/- 11.12.2012 Chawal Udyog, Raipur 6. M/s. Hardha Agency 77,60,000/- 5,35,000/- 27.11.2012 Total 14,41,32,250/- 7 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani Vs. ACIT-1(1), Raipur ITA Nos. 122 to 124/RPR/2024 ITA Nos. 135, 136 & 138/RPR/2024 6. The A.O observed that