M/S PURVI FINVEST LIMITED,BILASPUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1),, BILASPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee company being devoid and bereft of any merit is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

21,88,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on irrelevant

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), BHILAI vs. SHRI NITIN SANKHLA, DURG

In the result, grounds no 2 to 7 on this single issue of the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.98/Rpr/2020 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax- Vs Shri Nitin Sankhla 1(1), Bhilai 1St Floor, Navkar Bullion, Above Navin Jeweller, Jawahar Chowk, Durg Pan No. :Bbups 4874 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. : Shri Ravi Agarwal, Ca "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ila M. Parmar, Cit- Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02/06/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

section 115BBE has been inserted in the I. T. Act, 1961. Judicial pronouncement 1. SMT. HARSHIL CHORDIA VS. ITO [298 ITR 0349 (RAJSTHAN HC)] [Page 153-160 of PB] "Addition u/s 68 cannot be made in respect of the amount which was found to cash receipts from customers against which delivery of goods was made to them." 2. ACIT

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), BILASPUR vs. M/S JAYEM HOLDING PVT. LTD., BILASPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the department in ITA no

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

21 & CO No. 08/RPR/2018 revenue authorities too, thus the onus cast upon the assessee in terms of 1st proviso to 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 :

section 68.” 14 11. The ld. AR further relied on the order of ITAT, Kolkata, B - Bench in the case of M/s Gupta Ispat Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1971/Kol/2018 dated 20.10.2022 wherein it has been observed as under:- “8. We have heard the rival submissions, carefully perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that

EAST WEST FINVEST INDIA LIMITED,BILASPUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), BILASPR

In the result, appeal of the assessee company being devoid and bereft of any merit is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

section 68, applicable w.e.f from AY 2013-13, not only is the assessee required to explain the source of share application money, but in case the applicant is a company, then the said applicant company is also required to explain the source of money in is handing out of which the amount of share application money was advanced

M/S TRIMURTHY FINVEST LIMITED,BILASPUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), BILASPUR

In the result, appeal of the assesse company being devoid and bereft of any merit is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

section 68, applicable w.e.f from AY 2013-13, not only is the assessee required to explain the source of share application money, but in case the applicant is a company, then the said applicant company is also required to explain the source of money in is handing out of which the amount of share application money was advanced

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) ..

section 68 - Addition is called for. Pramila Investment and Finance Ltd. v. ITO (2013) 22 ITJ 149 (Trib. =Indore). 3. CIT vs Bikram Singh (Delhi High Court): P Mohankala 291 ITR 278 (SC): Diza Holdings 255 ITR 573 (Ker): CIT vs Precision Finance 208 ITR 265 (Cal~ wherein it has been held that if the lenders do not have

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) ..

section 68 - Addition is called for. Pramila Investment and Finance Ltd. v. ITO (2013) 22 ITJ 149 (Trib. =Indore). 3. CIT vs Bikram Singh (Delhi High Court): P Mohankala 291 ITR 278 (SC): Diza Holdings 255 ITR 573 (Ker): CIT vs Precision Finance 208 ITR 265 (Cal~ wherein it has been held that if the lenders do not have

MESERS GOYAL ENERGY & STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

section 68 and making an addition of Rs. 4,25,00,000/- on account of receipt of share capital and premium thereon. 2. That the ld. lower authorities have erred in law and fact by making an addition of Rs. 21

MESERS GOYAL INFRAVENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

section 68 and making an addition of Rs. 4,25,00,000/- on account of receipt of share capital and premium thereon. 2. That the ld. lower authorities have erred in law and fact by making an addition of Rs. 21

MESERS GOYAL ENERGY & STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

section 68 and making an addition of Rs. 4,25,00,000/- on account of receipt of share capital and premium thereon. 2. That the ld. lower authorities have erred in law and fact by making an addition of Rs. 21

MESERS GOYAL ENERGY & STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

section 68 and making an addition of Rs. 4,25,00,000/- on account of receipt of share capital and premium thereon. 2. That the ld. lower authorities have erred in law and fact by making an addition of Rs. 21

MESERS GOYAL ENERGY & STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

section 68 and making an addition of Rs. 4,25,00,000/- on account of receipt of share capital and premium thereon. 2. That the ld. lower authorities have erred in law and fact by making an addition of Rs. 21

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), RAIPUR vs. MESERS VANDANA ISPAT LIMITED, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

section 68 of the IT Act. Thus we do not perceive any reason to interfere with the observation of the Ld CIT(A) qua the impugned 18 allegation of the revenue and thus upheld the order of the CIT and reject this ground of revenue. 20. Apropos, the second issue with respect to disallowance u/s 14A. 21

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

section 68 of the Act ? Answering the above question, the hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the share application money is received by the assessee-company from alleged 10 ACIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur. Vs. M/s. Vandana Vidyut Limited bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the Assessing Officer in the Department is free to proceed

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

68 has been amended by Finance Act, 2012 inserting the sub-section 1 that source of source has to be proved in the cases of share application money ? 5. "Whether on the facts of the cases and in law, the CIT(A) is justified in replying on jurisdictional high court order in the case of ACIT Vs Venkateshwar (spat

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 on account of unexplained cash credit received by the assessee in the guise of share capital and premium. 5. Per contra, Shri Bikram Jain, Authorized Representative (in short “Ld. AR”) representing the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) had rightly, judiciously and according to settled principle of law have deliberated upon the issue and have decided the appeal

M/S. SUMIT GLOBAL PVT. LTD.,RAIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 1, RAIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.70/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Sumit Global Pvt. Ltd. C/O Kanha Electricals & Electronics, Nanhu Nagar, Vijay Nagar, P.O. Kirodimalnagar, Raigargh (C.G.) Pan : Aaocs8271J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1, Raigarh (C.G.)

Section 68 of the Act, failing which, the same is to be treated as unexplained cash credit in its hand. Although we are principally in agreement with the Ld. AR that an income cannot be allowed to be doubly taxed, but are afraid that the said contention would by no means assist the case of the assessee company before