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

KUSH KEDIA vs. A.C.I.T. 2(1), RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 105 & 106/Rpr/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2005-06 Kush Kedia Kedia Bhawan, Mandi Road, Balodabazar.Dist. Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aklpk5127B .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur. (C.G.) ……""यथ" /Respondent

68 of the Act. On merits, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that now when the CIT 11 Kush Kedia Vs. ACIT-2(1) ITA Nos. 105 & 106 /RPR/2015 (Appeals) had held that the loan received by the assessee from the aforesaid ten persons represented the unaccounted money of Shri. Ramesh Kedia i.e. assessee’s father, therefore, the same

KUSH KEDIA vs. A.C.I.T. 2(1), RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 105 & 106/Rpr/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2005-06 Kush Kedia Kedia Bhawan, Mandi Road, Balodabazar.Dist. Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aklpk5127B .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur. (C.G.) ……""यथ" /Respondent

68 of the Act. On merits, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that now when the CIT 11 Kush Kedia Vs. ACIT-2(1) ITA Nos. 105 & 106 /RPR/2015 (Appeals) had held that the loan received by the assessee from the aforesaid ten persons represented the unaccounted money of Shri. Ramesh Kedia i.e. assessee’s father, therefore, the same

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR vs. USHA DEVI SINGHANIA, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.269 & 270/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this 'section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. USHA DEVI SINGHANIA, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.269 & 270/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this 'section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income

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) ..

153 (Cal.). 2. Unsecured loan/Share Application Money - Addition is called for- Assessee obtained loan and also received share application money - AO doubted the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of these credits - AO made addition for same u/s. 68 - CIT(A) held that the ingredients of section 68 are not satisfied. However, in one of the cases, CIT(A) held that

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) ..

153 (Cal.). 2. Unsecured loan/Share Application Money - Addition is called for- Assessee obtained loan and also received share application money - AO doubted the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of these credits - AO made addition for same u/s. 68 - CIT(A) held that the ingredients of section 68 are not satisfied. However, in one of the cases, CIT(A) held that

SARTHAK ISPAT PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 431/Rpr/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2012-13) Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd., V Income Tax Officer-2(1), Raipur S Udaya Society, Vivekanand Ashram, Raipur, 492001, C.G. Pan: Aalcs5029H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) . (""थ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Subhash Agrawal, Adv. राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S. L. Anuragi, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2025

68 on account of share capital received by the appellant, disregarding and ignoring legal and cogent evidences available on record. The addition made by AO is arbitrary, baseless and not justified. 2. The Assessing Officer erred in making disallowance of Rs. 4,76,76,469/- on account of various expenses/purchases observing that the same were paid in cash and remained

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), BILASPUR vs. MUSADDILAL MANSARAM INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. , BILASPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 160/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

68, 69C and section 69 of the Act. 14. Being aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), wherein Ld. CIT(A) has granted substantial relief to the assessee, therefore, the revenue is in appeal against all such substantive reliefs allowed to the assessee by the Ld. CIT(A) and the assessee is in appeal

MUSADDILAL MANSARAM INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 160/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

68, 69C and section 69 of the Act. 14. Being aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), wherein Ld. CIT(A) has granted substantial relief to the assessee, therefore, the revenue is in appeal against all such substantive reliefs allowed to the assessee by the Ld. CIT(A) and the assessee is in appeal

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

3) dated 30.12.2017, determined the income of the assessee company at Rs.2,87,92,490/-. 15 M/s. Tripco Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT-1(1), Raipur 10. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). After deliberating at length on the contentions advanced by the assessee company, the CIT(Appeals) found favor with the claim

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR vs. SHANTA TECHNO PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 155/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

153) and Hon’ble Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of M/s. Vijay Proteins Ltd. Vs. ACIT (58 ITD 428) has extensively dealt with this issue and came to conclusion that disallowance of 25% of impugned purchases would suffice the matter. Similarly, the Hon’ble Jaipur Tribunal in the case of Deepak Dalela Vs. ITO (50 DTR 502) had extensively dealt

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

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

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 stood discharged by the Assessee.” Also, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rohini Builders, (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Del.), had held, that it is not for the assessee to prove the genuineness of the cash deposits in the bank accounts of the creditors

SHRI SURESH KUMAR NAMDEO,BILASPUR(CG) vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BILASPUR(CG)

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.84/Rpr/2016 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2004-2005) Suresh Kumar Namdeo, Vs Acit, Circle-2(1), Bilaspur A-9, Green Garden Colony, Mungeli Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) Pan No. : Ablpn 0899 A (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

153 are not applicable as no money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles or things or books of accounts or documents were seized belonging to the assessee. Prayed to annul the Assessment Order. 4. That under the facts & the law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- made

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1),, RAIPUR vs. SHRI. JAVED ALI PRADHAN,, RAIPUR

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member

3 7 ITR 151 (SC) and Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT, (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC)wherein it was held that : There must be something more than mere suspicion to support an mere suspicion can not take the place of proof for the purpose of passing an order of assessment. Similarly in Mehta Parikh

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1),, RAIPUR vs. SHRI. JAVED ALI PRADHAN,, RAIPUR

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member

3 7 ITR 151 (SC) and Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT, (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC)wherein it was held that : There must be something more than mere suspicion to support an mere suspicion can not take the place of proof for the purpose of passing an order of assessment. Similarly in Mehta Parikh

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1),, RAIPUR vs. SHRI. JAVED ALI PRADHAN,, RAIPUR

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member

3 7 ITR 151 (SC) and Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT, (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC)wherein it was held that : There must be something more than mere suspicion to support an mere suspicion can not take the place of proof for the purpose of passing an order of assessment. Similarly in Mehta Parikh