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

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

3. As to whether sub-clause (ia) of Section 40(a) of the Act, as inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 with effect from 01.04.2005, is applicable only from the financial year 2005-2006 and, hence, is not applicable to the present case relating to the financial year 2004-2005; and, at any rate, whole

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

3. As to whether sub-clause (ia) of Section 40(a) of the Act, as inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 with effect from 01.04.2005, is applicable only from the financial year 2005-2006 and, hence, is not applicable to the present case relating to the financial year 2004-2005; and, at any rate, whole

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

DY.C.I.T. 1, BHILAI(CG) 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 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

THE CHHATTISGARH STATE POWER GENERATION COMPANY LIMITED, RAIPUR,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(2),RAIPUR, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.16/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. O/O. Executive Director-Finance Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.24/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

68,556/- under the head "Profits & gains of business or profession" in spite of the fact that said income was already offered for taxation under the head "Income from other sources" while filing revised return of income for the year under consideration. 5). On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, CIT(A) erred in confirming action

CHHATTISGARH STATE POWER GENERATION CO. LTD.,RAIPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.16/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. O/O. Executive Director-Finance Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.24/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

68,556/- under the head "Profits & gains of business or profession" in spite of the fact that said income was already offered for taxation under the head "Income from other sources" while filing revised return of income for the year under consideration. 5). On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, CIT(A) erred in confirming action

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

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

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

3. As to whether sub-clause (ia) of Section 40(a) of the Act, as inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 with effect from 01.04.2005, is applicable only from the financial year 2005-2006 and, hence, is not applicable to the present case relating to the financial year 2004-2005; and, at any rate, whole

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, 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

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