ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR vs. MANAV MOTORS, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is disposed-off, in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 151/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18)

68 of the Act.” 3. “Whether in Law and on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the Penalty proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer u/s 270A(2)(a) of the Act for under reporting of income by the assessee.” 4. “The Order of the Hon’ble CIT(Appeals) is erroneous

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

2 of the present appeal pertaining to unsecured loan is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, the interest on such loan, whether the same is to be treated as bogus or not is consequential to the decision on the issue of standing of unsecured loan within the provision of section 68. We thus

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

M/S. PRACHI AGRICULTURE & PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,RAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-1, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. : 30/Rpr/2021 कर धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017 M/S Prachi Agriculture & Properties Private Limited 18-19, Anupam Nagar, Raipur (Cg) 492 001 Pan : Aabcp 3701 H . . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Nikhilesh Begani Revenue By : Shri P. K. Mishra सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 10/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Jamlappa D Battull, Am; Against The Revisionary Order Of Principal Of Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1 [For Short “Pcit”] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] Vide Order Dt 26/03/2021, For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2016-2017, The Appellant Assessee Filed This Appeal Before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [For Short “The Tribunal”] U/S 253(1) Of The Act.

253(1) of the Act. ITAT-Raipur Page 1 of 12 M/s Prachi Agriculture & Properties Private Limited AY 2016-2017 2. The grievance assailed under this appeal is twofold, firstly it challenges the violation of principle of natural justice and secondly it challenges validity of assumption of revisionary jurisdiction directing the assessing officer for fresh adjudication. 3. The legal

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 28/Rpr/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-2016

253. ITAT-Raipur Page 1 of 11 AY – 2015-2016 2. The short issue under this appeals is that, the appellant company challenged the validity of revisionary action directing the AO for fresh adjudication against an apparent error in applying the provisions of section 68

RANCHI FUELS, BALODA BAZAR, BHATAPARA,BALODA BAZAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHATAPARA, BHATAPARA

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.532/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ranchi Fuels Limtara, Nandghat, Baloda Bazar-492 006 (C.G.) Pan: Aatfr0836L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Bhatapara (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Learned CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in confirming the addition to the tune of Rs.26,80,000/- as the addition is contrary to facts, law and legislative intent, hence, it is prayed that the addition of Rs.26,80,000/- confirmed by the Learned CIT (Appeal) may kindly

ARIHANT JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,BHILAI vs. PR. CIT-1, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 61/Rpr/2021 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 Arihant Jewellers Private Limited 2/6, Akash Ganga, Supela, Bhilai (C.G.) .......अपीलार्थी / Appellant Pan : Aaica 6953 H

253 of the Act. ITAT-Raipur Page 1 of 11 AY – 2011-2012 2. The twofold issue under this appeals is that, firstly the appellant company assailed the basis assumption of revisionary jurisdiction and secondly challenged the revisionary action directing the AO for fresh adjudication. 3. The legal as well meritare grounds raised in the present appeal gyrate around jurisdictional

VISHAL BUILDERS, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.263/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vishal Builders 7/619, Gawri Bhawan, Fafadih Naka, Raipur-492001(C.G.) Pan : Aaefv1401G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Raipur, C.G.

68,296 0.36% 13,06,644 1.06% on secured loan 8 Vishal Builders vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) To salary 14,25,700 1.01% 24,03,790 1.29% 36,38,417 2.95% expenses 10. Considering the aforesaid facts, we find substance in the claim of the Ld. AR that the comparative analysis of the financial statements

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3),, RAIPUR vs. SMT. RACHNA DEVI SADHWANI L/H OF LATE SHRI KALYAN DAS SADHWANI, RAIPUR

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed, with no order as to cost

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No. 15/Blpr/2012 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2003-2004

253(2) vide order dt 27/01/2012 as under; “1. Whether in law and on facts & circumstance of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 10,45,804/- made by the A.O. u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 19661 by rejecting the Long Term Capital Gain claim of the assessee” “2. The order

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)

253 by the Revenue in the case of PSA construction For the A.Y. 2014-15-- request regarding – Appellant The revenue Partnership firm Assessment year 2014-15- Trading of tractors, trolly and parts ITR us 139 03-09-2014 Rs.77,71,280/- Assessed income 24-12-2016 Rs.3,10,30,484/- us 143(3) Addition Rs.2

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR vs. SHANTA TECHNO PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 155/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

253 ITR 341) that if on the examination of the evidence, it is found that there was no genuine transaction between the parties, a pure paper transaction could not have entitled the assessee to claim benefit under the law. 5 DCIT-1(1) vs. Shanta Techno Private Limited Similarly, the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal held in the case of Balaji