ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR (CG) vs. M/S VANDANA VIDYUT LIMITED,, RAIPUR (CG)

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.138/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Vandana Vidyut Limited Vandana Building, M.G Road, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaacv7850L ……""यथ" / Respondent

3) dated 29.03.2016 determined the income of the assessee company at Rs.10,37,85,580/-. 4. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). Finding favour with the contentions advanced by the assessee that it was in receipt of genuine amount of share capital/premium from the aforementioned investors, the CIT(Appeals) vacated the addition of Rs.10

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) ..

68 Lakh to Rs. 1.44 Crores 6 & CO No.13/RPR/2017 and the AO has accepted such increased remuneration. It is also mentioned by the Ld CIT(A) that by increasing remuneration of the director, no motive for tax evasion by the assessee company could be envisaged since the assessee company and the directors both are under the 30% tax bracket, this

SHRI SHRI NISHANT JAIN,BILASPUR(CG) vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,RANGE-I, BILASPUR(CG)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.199/Rpr/2016 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Nishant Jain, Vs Jcit, Range-1, Bilaspur(Cg) M/S Landmark Engineer, Flat No.27, Shantinagar, Ring Road No.2, Bilaspur Pan No. : Agepj 9793 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

200, such sum shall be allowed as a deduction in computing the income of the previous year in which such tax has been paid. As amended with retrospective effect from 01.04.2005 i.e. applicable from A.Y. 2005/06, by Finance Act, 2008: (/a) any interest, commission or brokerage, [rent, royalty,] fees for professional services or fees for technical services payable

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

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)

3). no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee company u/s 68.  In the case of Bini Builders Pvt. Ltdvs. DCIT, (2021) 62 CCH 0085 MumTrib, it was held that No addition could be made merely on the basis of allegation, suspicion, conjectures or surmises.  In the case of DCIT vs. R.K. Transport & Constructions

SUBRAMANIAM SWAMINATHAN IYER, BHILAI,DURG vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHILAI, DURG

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.71/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Subramaniam Swaminathan Iyer 12-A/7, Nehru Nagar, Bhilai (C.G.)-490 020 Pan: Anwps2381P

section 14A”. As the assessee based on the aforesaid additional ground of appeal has raised an issue, the adjudication of which would not require looking any further beyond the facts available on record, therefore, we have no hesitation in admitting the same. Our aforesaid view that where an assessee, had raised, though for the first time, an additional ground

M/S LNS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,DURG(CG) vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Ram Lal Negi)

section 68 of the Act is applicable from 01.04.2013 i.e. A.Y. 2013-14 and therefore not applicable to the subject assessment year as held by the Co-ordinate Bench of Mumbai in the case of Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. in ITA 5784/Mum/2011 which was subsequently confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHILAI vs. MESERS METEX ENGINEERS, BHILAI

In the result Ground No 8 of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.238/Rpr/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-2016) M/S Metex Engineers, Vs Ito, Ward-1(2), Bhilai Shop No.10-11, Ganesh Complex, Shakti Vihar, Risali Bhilai, Durg Pan No. :Aawfm 8852 G & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.247/Rpr/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Ito, Ward-1(2), Bhilai Vs M/S Metex Engineers, Shop No.10-11, Ganesh Complex, Shakti Vihar, Risali Bhilai, Durg Pan No. :Aawfm 8852 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.B.Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V.K.Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 24/04/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

Section 68: 6. At the outset Ld AR of the assessee has preferred not to press Ground Number 1 of the appeal by submitting as under: Ground No.1 - of the assessee’s appeal is directed against addition of Rs.5,50,000/- is not pressed as the Learned AO has allowed relief as per direction of Learned CIT (A) while

MESERS METEX ENGINEERS,BHILAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHILAI

In the result Ground No 8 of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.238/Rpr/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-2016) M/S Metex Engineers, Vs Ito, Ward-1(2), Bhilai Shop No.10-11, Ganesh Complex, Shakti Vihar, Risali Bhilai, Durg Pan No. :Aawfm 8852 G & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.247/Rpr/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Ito, Ward-1(2), Bhilai Vs M/S Metex Engineers, Shop No.10-11, Ganesh Complex, Shakti Vihar, Risali Bhilai, Durg Pan No. :Aawfm 8852 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.B.Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V.K.Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 24/04/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

Section 68: 6. At the outset Ld AR of the assessee has preferred not to press Ground Number 1 of the appeal by submitting as under: Ground No.1 - of the assessee’s appeal is directed against addition of Rs.5,50,000/- is not pressed as the Learned AO has allowed relief as per direction of Learned CIT (A) while

GHANSHYAM LAL, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K Panda & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.241/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Ghanshyam Lal Ward No.06, Chhatauna Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 222 Pan: Ajupl0084A ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1 (C.G.)

3 Ghanshyam Lal Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 Bank of India, Bilaspur. That since the assessee could not substantiate the nature and source of making such cash deposits, the A.O treated the same as undisclosed income and added it u/s. 68 of the Act to the income of the assessee. Assessment was completed by the A.O determining total income

SHRI SHAKTIDHAM INFRAVENTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,BILASPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , BILASPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 71/Rpr/2020) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16)

200/- and as per balance sheet he has made investment of Rs. 14,79,500/- in this company only and he has no other asset. 06 KK Mishra (HUF) 524000 Cash deposit of Rs. 1,60,000/- on 21.04.2014. Cash deposit of Rs. 2,00,000/- and transfer amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- on 15.01,2015 and 20.01.2015 respectively

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)), BHILAI vs. SHRI SANJAY JAIN, BHILAI

In the result ground no. 06 of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: Ita 55/Rpr/2020 (Assessment Years:2014-15) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, V Shri Sanjay Jain, Bhilai S C/O M/S Sidhharth Industries, Plot No. 38, Industrial Estate, Bhilai, C.G. Pan: Aet Pj1859D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) . (""यथ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ravi Agarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 23-08-2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 09-11-2023 Pronouncement

section 68. We thus, are of the opinion that ground no. 3 of the revenue should also be re-adjudicated afresh a/w the issue 14 Sanjay Jain regarding additions u/s 68, accordingly the same is directed to restore back to the files of Ld. CIT(A). In the result ground no. 3 of the appeal is partly allowed

ARDENT STEELS PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 337/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"Assessment Year: 2020-21)

68,114/- by making a disallowance on account of Health & Education Cess paid for Rs. 47,34,164/- and claimed as expenditure under any other item allowable as Deduction in Schedule BP in ITR. Subsequently, the case record of the assessee are examined by the Ld. PCIT and have observed that during the relevant period the assessee company made purchases

SHRI SHRI MAHESH KUMAR DUHLANI,KORBA(CG) vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE , KORBA, KORBA(CG)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaiआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 92/Bil/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Mahesh Kumar Duhlani Main Road, P. O. Katoghora, Distt. Korba (C.G) Pan : Aejpd4102K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle Mahanadi Complex, Niharika Road, Korba (Cg) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri G. S. Agrawal Revenue By : Shri G. N. Singh सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 09.06.2022

68 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved from the order of the assessing officer the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition based on the following observations:- Observation of the ld. CIT(A) on addition of Rs. 17,26,809/- 11 A.Y.2011-12 Decision- I have considered the rival submission and find

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. MAHALAXMI TECHNOCASR LTD, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 256 To 259/Rpr/2014

Section 68 of the Act towards satisfactory explanation. It was essentially observed that the assessee has failed to discharge onus towards genuineness and creditworthiness of the share applicants (subscribers). 6. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) challenging the aforesaid additions in all these impugned ass. years. 7. In the first appeal, the assessee filed detailed submissions

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. MAHALAXMI TECHNOCASR LTD, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 256 To 259/Rpr/2014

Section 68 of the Act towards satisfactory explanation. It was essentially observed that the assessee has failed to discharge onus towards genuineness and creditworthiness of the share applicants (subscribers). 6. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) challenging the aforesaid additions in all these impugned ass. years. 7. In the first appeal, the assessee filed detailed submissions

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. MAHALAXMI TECHNOCASR LTD, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 256 To 259/Rpr/2014

Section 68 of the Act towards satisfactory explanation. It was essentially observed that the assessee has failed to discharge onus towards genuineness and creditworthiness of the share applicants (subscribers). 6. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) challenging the aforesaid additions in all these impugned ass. years. 7. In the first appeal, the assessee filed detailed submissions

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. MAHALAXMI TECHNOCASR LTD, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 256 To 259/Rpr/2014

Section 68 of the Act towards satisfactory explanation. It was essentially observed that the assessee has failed to discharge onus towards genuineness and creditworthiness of the share applicants (subscribers). 6. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) challenging the aforesaid additions in all these impugned ass. years. 7. In the first appeal, the assessee filed detailed submissions