PRAKASH GODHWANI,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.136/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Prakash Godhwani, Vs Ito-1(2), Raipur Prop. M/S Prakash Agency, Near Girls High School, Neora(Cg) Pan No. : Aglpg 2669 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

275, page no. 369 of Reports, para no. 7. 6. Addition made on the sole ground that cash deposited in the bank account of lender i) Event of cash deposit by itself could not result into addition. It could have at the most, triggered an enquiry. ii) Assessee not burdened to explain how cash was deposited by the lenders. Reliance

SMT. SEEMA AGRAWAL,RAIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD -I, RAIGARH

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.179/Rpr/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Seema Agrawal, Vs Ito, Ward-1, Raigarh Sewa Kunj Road, Near Girls College, Raigarh (C.G.) Pan No. : Affpa 4990 K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) ..

68 discharged. No enquiry whatsoever by the AC) and the onus never shifted back to the assessee. In view of this, no addition could have been made. Reliance on: - i) CIT vs Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) (PN 103 to 108 of PB). ii) CIT vs Metachem Industries

M/S SCC INVESTMENT ,RAIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - I, RAIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

68 discharged. No enquiry whatsoever by the AC) and the onus never shifted back to the assessee. In view of this, no addition could have been made. Reliance on: - 4 i) CIT vs Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) (PN 103 to 108 of PB). ii) CIT vs Metachem Industries

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, viz. (i). M/s. MRA Global Pvt. Ltd. : Rs. 60 lac; and (ii). M/s. Maa Samleshwari Steels Pvt. Ltd. : Rs. 30 lac. (B). Loans raised by the assessee from certain individuals : Sr. No. Particulars Amount 1. Smt. Mohini Garg Rs. 8,00,000/- 2. Shri Pawan Garg Rs. 12,00,000/- 3. Smt. Sharda Devi

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, viz. (i). M/s. MRA Global Pvt. Ltd. : Rs. 60 lac; and (ii). M/s. Maa Samleshwari Steels Pvt. Ltd. : Rs. 30 lac. (B). Loans raised by the assessee from certain individuals : Sr. No. Particulars Amount 1. Smt. Mohini Garg Rs. 8,00,000/- 2. Shri Pawan Garg Rs. 12,00,000/- 3. Smt. Sharda Devi

SANTOSH CHOPRA,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE-3(4), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 220/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Santosh Chopra, D-3, Faristha Complex, G.E Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Acipj9443J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Circle-3(4), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

68 of the Act. The law as explained by the Tribunal and approved by the High Court in the case of Dy. CIT Vs. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360, 370 (Guj). Special leave petition filed was dismissed as reported in [2002] 254 ITR (St.) 275 (SC). I do not find that the said case is applicable in the case

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED,BILASPUR vs. ITO(TDS), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

Appeals stands PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

section 44AB of the Act. 4.2 From the regular assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act for AY 2017-18 it was observed that, for the year under consideration the assessee company debited to its profit & loss a/c a sum of ₹259.67Cr under the head ‘Power & Township Expenses’ in respect of employees benefit expense and also

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED,BILASPUR vs. DCIT(TDS),RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Appeals stands PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

section 44AB of the Act. 4.2 From the regular assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act for AY 2017-18 it was observed that, for the year under consideration the assessee company debited to its profit & loss a/c a sum of ₹259.67Cr under the head ‘Power & Township Expenses’ in respect of employees benefit expense and also

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED (TAN- JBPS03398D), KORBA

Appeals stands PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

section 44AB of the Act. 4.2 From the regular assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act for AY 2017-18 it was observed that, for the year under consideration the assessee company debited to its profit & loss a/c a sum of ₹259.67Cr under the head ‘Power & Township Expenses’ in respect of employees benefit expense and also

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED (TAN- JBPS13157E), KORBA

Appeals stands PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

section 44AB of the Act. 4.2 From the regular assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act for AY 2017-18 it was observed that, for the year under consideration the assessee company debited to its profit & loss a/c a sum of ₹259.67Cr under the head ‘Power & Township Expenses’ in respect of employees benefit expense and also

ITO(TDS), BILASPUR, BILASPUR vs. SECL, BILASPUR, SECL HASDEO AREA

Appeals stands PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

section 44AB of the Act. 4.2 From the regular assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act for AY 2017-18 it was observed that, for the year under consideration the assessee company debited to its profit & loss a/c a sum of ₹259.67Cr under the head ‘Power & Township Expenses’ in respect of employees benefit expense and also

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED,BILASPUR vs. DCIT(TDS),RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Appeals stands PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

section 44AB of the Act. 4.2 From the regular assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act for AY 2017-18 it was observed that, for the year under consideration the assessee company debited to its profit & loss a/c a sum of ₹259.67Cr under the head ‘Power & Township Expenses’ in respect of employees benefit expense and also

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. SECL (TAN- BPLS04697A), KORBA

Appeals stands PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

section 44AB of the Act. 4.2 From the regular assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act for AY 2017-18 it was observed that, for the year under consideration the assessee company debited to its profit & loss a/c a sum of ₹259.67Cr under the head ‘Power & Township Expenses’ in respect of employees benefit expense and also

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED,BILASPUR vs. DCIT(TDS),RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Appeals stands PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

section 44AB of the Act. 4.2 From the regular assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act for AY 2017-18 it was observed that, for the year under consideration the assessee company debited to its profit & loss a/c a sum of ₹259.67Cr under the head ‘Power & Township Expenses’ in respect of employees benefit expense and also

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED (TAN-BPLS04617E) , SURGUJA

Appeals stands PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

section 44AB of the Act. 4.2 From the regular assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act for AY 2017-18 it was observed that, for the year under consideration the assessee company debited to its profit & loss a/c a sum of ₹259.67Cr under the head ‘Power & Township Expenses’ in respect of employees benefit expense and also

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED,BILASPUR vs. DCIT(TDS),RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Appeals stands PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

section 44AB of the Act. 4.2 From the regular assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act for AY 2017-18 it was observed that, for the year under consideration the assessee company debited to its profit & loss a/c a sum of ₹259.67Cr under the head ‘Power & Township Expenses’ in respect of employees benefit expense and also

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED,BILASPUR vs. DCIT(TDS),RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Appeals stands PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

section 44AB of the Act. 4.2 From the regular assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act for AY 2017-18 it was observed that, for the year under consideration the assessee company debited to its profit & loss a/c a sum of ₹259.67Cr under the head ‘Power & Township Expenses’ in respect of employees benefit expense and also

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. SOUTH EASTERN COAL FIELDS LTD. (TAN- JBPS02667A), KUSMUNDA

Appeals stands PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

section 44AB of the Act. 4.2 From the regular assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act for AY 2017-18 it was observed that, for the year under consideration the assessee company debited to its profit & loss a/c a sum of ₹259.67Cr under the head ‘Power & Township Expenses’ in respect of employees benefit expense and also

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED,BILASPUR vs. DCIT(TDS),RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Appeals stands PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

section 44AB of the Act. 4.2 From the regular assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act for AY 2017-18 it was observed that, for the year under consideration the assessee company debited to its profit & loss a/c a sum of ₹259.67Cr under the head ‘Power & Township Expenses’ in respect of employees benefit expense and also

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. SECL, O/O CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (TAN- JBPS02072A), RAIGARH

Appeals stands PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

section 44AB of the Act. 4.2 From the regular assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act for AY 2017-18 it was observed that, for the year under consideration the assessee company debited to its profit & loss a/c a sum of ₹259.67Cr under the head ‘Power & Township Expenses’ in respect of employees benefit expense and also