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

260,000) 730,000 - 5,730,000 Maharaja Tradecom 3 Pvt Ltd 72,500,000 - - 3,000,000 - (2,025,000) - 75,500.000 Muskan Dealers 4 Pvt. Ltd. 9,000,000 48,850,000 18,000,000 7,500,000 - 50,000 8,450,000 91,850,000 Nawab Vvapar

FIVE STARCONSTRUCTION COMPANY,BHILAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), BHILAI

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.45/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Five Star Construction Company Plot No.96-97, Light Industrial Area, Chawani Chowk, Bhilai (C.G)-490026 Pan : Aaaff4316L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

260/- made by the AO on account of alleged unrecorded contract receipts. The addition made by the AO and confirmed by CIT(A) is not justified. 9. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.8,10,000/- made by AO on account of alleged credits found in the records, on account of car sale. The addition is arbitrary

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)

260 Taxman 298 (SC) Where High Court upheld Tribunal's order confirming addition made to assessee's income in respect of unaccounted business receipts having regard to fact that gross profit declared by assessee was much lesser than ALLAHABAD Kaveri Rice Mills* v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kanpur2006] 157 TAXMAN 376 (ALL.) HIGH COURT OF Section

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.

260 13.09% 1,31,47,467 10.66% payment 7 Vishal Builders vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) At this stage, we may herein observe that neither of the lower authorities had drawn any adverse inferences as regards the gross profit rate of the assessee for the year under consideration. 9. Apropos the comparative fall in the NP rate

SUBHASH MURARKA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.176/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Subhash Murarka C-1/85/186-R7, Swarnabhoomi, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Pan: Aeqpm4578P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

68 of the I.T. Act 1961 on protective basis.” 9. The Ld. CIT (A) has on this issue observed and held as follows: 4. During the course of appeal proceedings, the following notices/letters for hearing were issued to the appellant, but till date the appellant has neither filed any response nor filed any submissions in support of grounds of appeal