DY.C.I.T. 1 vs. SHRI SANDEEP SURENDRAN NAIR, BHILAI(CG)

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

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury,Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.222& 318/Rpr/2014 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11& 2011-12

201(1). The insertion of the second proviso to Section 40(a) (ia) also requires to be viewed in the same manner. This again is a proviso intended to benefit the Assessee. The effect of the legal fiction created thereby is to treat the Assessee as a person not in default of deducting tax at source under certain contingencies

M/S POORNACHAND AGRAWAL, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, 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. 104/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Pooranchand Agrawal C/O. Bagadia Enterprises, Near Shiv Talkies, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495001 Pan : Aaifp8483G

68, appex court observed as under: 6 M/s. Pooranchand Agrawal Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 “……. The expression 'the assessee offers an explanation means where the assessee offers no proper, reasonable and acceptable explanation as regards the sums found credited in the books maintained by the assesses……” 1. iv) Now , let us revert back to the facts of this case

SHRI SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR AGRAWAL, KORBA,KORBA(CG) vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,RANGE KORBA, KORBA(CG)

In the result, appeal of the assesee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 93 & 94/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Prop. Of M/S. Shrikishan & Co., T.P Nagar, Korba (C.G.) Pan : Acgpa4350B .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

68 of the Act. 7. Apropos the disallowance made by the A.O u/s 14A of the Act of the assessee’s claim for deduction of interest expenditure of Rs.2,86,300/-, it was observed by the CIT(Appeals) that though the assessee had made 6 Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range, Korba

SHRI SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR AGRAWAL, KORBA,KORBA(CG) vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,RANGE KORBA, KORBA(CG)

In the result, appeal of the assesee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 93 & 94/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Prop. Of M/S. Shrikishan & Co., T.P Nagar, Korba (C.G.) Pan : Acgpa4350B .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

68 of the Act. 7. Apropos the disallowance made by the A.O u/s 14A of the Act of the assessee’s claim for deduction of interest expenditure of Rs.2,86,300/-, it was observed by the CIT(Appeals) that though the assessee had made 6 Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range, Korba

M/S BARBRIK PROJECT LIMITED,SURAJPUR (CG) vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF IMCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-KORBA, KORBA(CG)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaiआयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 67/Rpr/2017 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

68 of the act laid down by the courts namely genuineness of the transaction, identity and the capacity of the investor have all been examined it does not entitle the revenue to add the same to the assessee’s income as unexplained cash credit. As in this case the capacity of the investor is not proved by the cogent evidence

SUSHIL KUMAR AGRAWAL,KORBA vs. DEPUTY COMMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, KORBA, KORBA

In the result, appeal of 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.148/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Prop. Of M/S. Shrikishan & Co., Darri Road, Korba (C.G.) Pan : Acgpa4350B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

201, then, for the purpose of this sub-clause, it shall be deemed that the assessee has deducted and paid the tax on such sum on the date of furnishing of return of income by the resident payee referred to in the said proviso.16 *** *** ***” 19.2. The aforesaid amendment by the Finance (No.2) Act of 2014 was specifically made applicable w.e.f

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)

68. It is the submission that the very assumption of jurisdiction is contrary to the facts of law and fact on record hence proceedings u/s 263 of the Act and impugned order dated 13.03.2024 is liable to be quashed. Ld. AR placed his reliance on following judgments on this issue: (i) Smt. Rekha Shekhawat vs PCIT, ITAT- Jaipur

DCIT-1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI vs. VIJAYA DESHLAHRA, INDORE

In the result, ITA No. 92/RPR/2025 & C

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpia

201, Pushparatna Castle, 12, Kanchan Baug, Indore. PAN : AGOPD 3899 E (Applicant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Ms. Nisha Lahoti, CA (virtual) For Revenue : Shri S.L. Anuragi, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 01.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 03.07.2025 2 ITA.Nos.92-94/RPR/2025 COs No.08-10/RPR/2025 ORDER PER BENCH: These appeals by the Revenue and corresponding COs by the assessee emanates from the separate

DCIT-1(1), BHILAI vs. VIJAYA DESHLAHRA, INDORE

In the result, ITA No. 92/RPR/2025 & C

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpia

201, Pushparatna Castle, 12, Kanchan Baug, Indore. PAN : AGOPD 3899 E (Applicant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Ms. Nisha Lahoti, CA (virtual) For Revenue : Shri S.L. Anuragi, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 01.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 03.07.2025 2 ITA.Nos.92-94/RPR/2025 COs No.08-10/RPR/2025 ORDER PER BENCH: These appeals by the Revenue and corresponding COs by the assessee emanates from the separate

DCIT-1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI vs. VIJAYA DESHLAHRA, INDORE

In the result, ITA No. 92/RPR/2025 & C

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpia

201, Pushparatna Castle, 12, Kanchan Baug, Indore. PAN : AGOPD 3899 E (Applicant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Ms. Nisha Lahoti, CA (virtual) For Revenue : Shri S.L. Anuragi, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 01.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 03.07.2025 2 ITA.Nos.92-94/RPR/2025 COs No.08-10/RPR/2025 ORDER PER BENCH: These appeals by the Revenue and corresponding COs by the assessee emanates from the separate

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), RAIPUR vs. PSA CONSTRUCTION, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

201/- 68,62,03,653/- 5. Net profit (a> 8% 1,53,84,842/- 2,36,61,456/- 5,48,96,292/- 6. 1,99,656/- Add: Interest on IT - - Refund 7. 1,10,27,495/- 1,78,16,666/- 3,16,24,345/- Less: Depreciation 8. 45,57,003/- 58,44,790/- 2,32,71,927/- Profit after Depreciation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 1(1), RAIPUR vs. M/S R.R. INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 144/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. R.R. Industrial Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd., Station Road, Telghani Naka, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaecr4291B ……""यथ" / Respondent

Section 68 of the Act held that where the revenue urges that the amount of share application money has been received from bogus shareholders, then it is for 27 ACIT-1(1),Raipur Vs. M/s. R. R. Industrial Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd. the Income Tax Officer to proceed by reopening the assessment of such shareholders and assess them

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

Appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.200/Rpr/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Nishant Jain, The Joint Commissioner Of M/S.Landmark Engineer, V Income Tax, Range-1, Flat No.27, Shantinagar, S Raipur. Ring Road No.2, Bilaspur(C.G.) Pan: Agepj 9793 M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri R.B.Doshi – Ar Revenue By Shri G.N.Singh – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 24/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 27/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The By Assessee I.E. Nishant Jain For A.Y. 2011-12 Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)-Bilaspur Dated 21.03.2016, Emanating From Order Of The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Dated 12.03.2014. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

201(1) read with section 40(a)(ia), the assessee is required to furnish a certificate from an accountant in the prescribed form i.e form 26A to prove that the assessee is not deemed to be an assessee in default, but since the assessee has failed to furnish the same till the hearing of this appeal on 4th August

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-1), RAIPUR vs. SHRI GURPREET SINGH BHATIA, RAJNANDGAON

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue in IT(SS)A 01/RPR/2022, stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./It(Ss)A 01/Rpr/2022 Cross Objection No. 02/Rpr/2023 (Arising Out Of It(Ss)A No. 01/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Years:2018-19) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax V M/S Merigold Impex, (Central Circle-I), S 35/75, Punjabi Colony, Katora Talab, Raipur, (C.G.) Raipur, (C.G.) Pan: Aasfm6747N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita 17/Rpr/2022 Cross Objection No. 03/Rpr/2023 (Arising Out Of Ita 17/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Years:2018-19) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax V Shri Gurpreet Singh Bhatia, (Central Circle-I), S 1/2/1, Old Bus Stand Road, Raipur, (C.G.) Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) Pan: Aaspb5363R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Praveen Jain, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By : Shri Debashish Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 07-09-2023 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27-10-2023

201 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 516 M/s Nawab Vyapaar 17722 10403 93288 0 0 0 AACCN4666N Private Limited MIs Accurate Ashray Private 1961 5571 8249 0 0 0 AAGCA9943F Limited 11 IT(SS)A 01/RPR/2022,CO 02/RPR/2023 ITA17/RPR/2022, CO 03/RPR/2023 M/s Puja Dealcom 17228 10442 65518 0 0 0 AAECP3427F Private Limited M/s VikashTradecom

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) ..

section 153A should follow to the extent of any documents seized for any relevant assessment year and in any other year no case should be reopened where there is no incriminating documents. In the assessment order the AO has mentioned that certain incriminating documents in respect of the assessee were found. Addition has been made treating the share capital

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) ..

section 153A should follow to the extent of any documents seized for any relevant assessment year and in any other year no case should be reopened where there is no incriminating documents. In the assessment order the AO has mentioned that certain incriminating documents in respect of the assessee were found. Addition has been made treating the share capital

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), RAIPUR vs. MESERS SATYANARAYAN NATHULAL, TILDA-NEORA

In the result appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaiआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 178/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Income Tax Officer-1(2) Raipur (C.G) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S Satyanarayan Nathulal Gandhi Chowk, Tilda-Neora Dist: Raipur (C.G) Pan : Aakfs1487K ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ravi Agrawal Revenue By : Shri Debashish Lahiri

68,22,775/- out of total addition made by the AO as the assessee could not substantiate the alleged transaction as genuine by producing documentary evidence from genuine dealers for genuine purchase?” 5. Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) was justified in accepting the fresh evidence produced by the assessee

SHRI SANDEEP SURENDRAN NAIR,BHILAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIOMER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BHILAI

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 54/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Sandeep Surendran Nair 38, Income Tax Colony, Gadge Nagar, Hingna Road, Nagpur (M.H.)-440016 Pan : Aczpn2865M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit. b- Ultratech Cement (Awarpur Cement) :- There is a difference of Rs. 9,85,367/- in the receipts as per 26AS and as per books. The receipts shown in books of accounts are short. The assessee has been asked to explain the same. The assessee has explained and stated that the Ultratech Cement