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)

153C excludes the applicability of Section 147 in such cases, the entire proceedings are without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. 3. The assessment proceedings initiated via notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2021 but issued only on 01.04.2021 is barred by limitation under the amended Section 149(1)(a), as the alleged escaped income is only

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

153C of the Act, dated 31.12.2007. Apart from that, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that as the aforesaid loans/gifts were deposited by the assessee in his bank account, therefore, the same de hors any credit of the same in his “books of account” could not have been brought to tax within the meaning of Section 68

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

153C of the Act, dated 31.12.2007. Apart from that, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that as the aforesaid loans/gifts were deposited by the assessee in his bank account, therefore, the same de hors any credit of the same in his “books of account” could not have been brought to tax within the meaning of 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 :

153C of the Act. 4. That the Ld. AO erred in the very invocation of section 148 as the reason to believe suffered from factually incorrect/ irrelevant information and borrowed satisfaction while failing the basic test as laid down in several judicial precedence. 5. That the both the lower authorities erred in holding that the amendment to section

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) ..

section 153C was unjustified - Held, yes [Paras 18 & 19][In favour of assessee] 7 5. Ld AR has submitted assessement and appellate orders in the case of Shri Shail Kumar Behre, whose name was also written in the seized document with the assessee and a similar addition of Rs. 10 lac was made by the AO, ACIT,Circle

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) ..

153C read with Section 153A of the Act for to which, no proceedings were pending on the date of search? 2. Whether the Assessment can be made U/S 158C in case of person other than searched person without having any incriminating document found during search which belongs to the other person and in the absence of any such satisfaction

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) ..

153C read with Section 153A of the Act for to which, no proceedings were pending on the date of search? 2. Whether the Assessment can be made U/S 158C in case of person other than searched person without having any incriminating document found during search which belongs to the other person and in the absence of any such satisfaction

INCOME TAX OFFICER, RAIPUR vs. RAHUL KATHURIA, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.151 & 152/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 The Income Tax Officer/Income Tax Officer-3(1) Raipur (C.G.)

68 of the Act. It is recorded that "There is no dispute that the shares of the two companies were purchased online, the payments have been made through banking channel, and the shares were dematerialized, and the sales have been routed from the demat account, and the consideration has been received through banking channels." The above-noted factors, including

INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. RAHUL KATHURIA, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.151 & 152/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 The Income Tax Officer/Income Tax Officer-3(1) Raipur (C.G.)

68 of the Act. It is recorded that "There is no dispute that the shares of the two companies were purchased online, the payments have been made through banking channel, and the shares were dematerialized, and the sales have been routed from the demat account, and the consideration has been received through banking channels." The above-noted factors, including

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, it was open to the department to take recourse of section 131 or section 133(6) of the Act, if they were to further proceed, that not having done so, the First Appellate Authority was within its jurisdiction to conclude on facts and law, in favour of the assessee. 6.3 In the case

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2004-05 Manju Kedia, Acit- 2(1), Kedia Bhawan, Mandi Road, Raipur (Cg). Balod Bazar, Distt. Raipur, Vs. Raipur (Cg).

68, on account of amount received by appellant as advance against sale of land. The addition made by the A.O. and sustained by CIT(A) is not justified. 2. Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal, the A.O. erred in invoking section 153C

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

DOLPHIN PROMOTERS AND BUILDERS,RAIPUR vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 58/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2011-12)

68,00,000 on the count of 'sale proceeds of immovable property sold on 4-11-20, treating it as undisclosed business receipts, which is unjustified and is liable to be deleted. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.50,00,000 made

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. In the light of above discussion, the AO observed that the identity, creditworthiness or genuineness of the transactions is not established by merely showing that the transaction was through banking channels or by account payee instrument. It would be incorrect to state that the onus to prove the genuineness of the CO Nos.02 to 08/RPR/2015 transaction

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. In the light of above discussion, the AO observed that the identity, creditworthiness or genuineness of the transactions is not established by merely showing that the transaction was through banking channels or by account payee instrument. It would be incorrect to state that the onus to prove the genuineness of the CO Nos.02 to 08/RPR/2015 transaction

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. In the light of above discussion, the AO observed that the identity, creditworthiness or genuineness of the transactions is not established by merely showing that the transaction was through banking channels or by account payee instrument. It would be incorrect to state that the onus to prove the genuineness of the CO Nos.02 to 08/RPR/2015 transaction

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. In the light of above discussion, the AO observed that the identity, creditworthiness or genuineness of the transactions is not established by merely showing that the transaction was through banking channels or by account payee instrument. It would be incorrect to state that the onus to prove the genuineness of the CO Nos.02 to 08/RPR/2015 transaction

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. In the light of above discussion, the AO observed that the identity, creditworthiness or genuineness of the transactions is not established by merely showing that the transaction was through banking channels or by account payee instrument. It would be incorrect to state that the onus to prove the genuineness of the CO Nos.02 to 08/RPR/2015 transaction

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. In the light of above discussion, the AO observed that the identity, creditworthiness or genuineness of the transactions is not established by merely showing that the transaction was through banking channels or by account payee instrument. It would be incorrect to state that the onus to prove the genuineness of the CO Nos.02 to 08/RPR/2015 transaction