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 :

68 of the Act and taxable @ 60% under the provision of Section 115BE of the Act. It is also noted from the order of the ld. CIT(A) at para 4.1 wherein the ld. CIT(A) has described para 1.4 of assessee written submission that complete regular books of accounts, bill, vouchers and day to day stock register having

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

Section 68 along with its provisos are duly discharged and submitted to you for your kind satisfaction. On the basis of similar facts Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal A Bench, Ahmedabad in the case of Chartered Speed Pvt. Ltd.„ ... vs Assessee on 28

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

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 153A w.e.f 1.4.2017 and appellant could have been assessed/reassessed only u/s 153A. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) failed to properly appreciate a large number of 2 evidences provided and citations made and erred in confirming addition of Rs. 4.91 crs and Rs. 24,550/- made

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

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

68 was warranted in absence of incriminating evidence, in the abated assessment. We hold so. In the result the ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is allowed. M/s. Goyal Energy & Steel Pvt. Ltd.& another ITA Nos.240-243 & 246/RPR/2019 21. We further find that the assessee in response to the show cause notice dated 29.08.2018 filed its detail reply

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

68 was warranted in absence of incriminating evidence, in the abated assessment. We hold so. In the result the ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is allowed. M/s. Goyal Energy & Steel Pvt. Ltd.& another ITA Nos.240-243 & 246/RPR/2019 21. We further find that the assessee in response to the show cause notice dated 29.08.2018 filed its detail reply

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

68 was warranted in absence of incriminating evidence, in the abated assessment. We hold so. In the result the ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is allowed. M/s. Goyal Energy & Steel Pvt. Ltd.& another ITA Nos.240-243 & 246/RPR/2019 21. We further find that the assessee in response to the show cause notice dated 29.08.2018 filed its detail reply

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

68 was warranted in absence of incriminating evidence, in the abated assessment. We hold so. In the result the ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is allowed. M/s. Goyal Energy & Steel Pvt. Ltd.& another ITA Nos.240-243 & 246/RPR/2019 21. We further find that the assessee in response to the show cause notice dated 29.08.2018 filed its detail reply

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

68 was warranted in absence of incriminating evidence, in the abated assessment. We hold so. In the result the ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is allowed. M/s. Goyal Energy & Steel Pvt. Ltd.& another ITA Nos.240-243 & 246/RPR/2019 21. We further find that the assessee in response to the show cause notice dated 29.08.2018 filed its detail reply

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

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

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. Ld DR had strongly

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

Section 68 of the Act, therefore, we are constrained to hold the same as an unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act. 28

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)

Section 68 of the Act stood discharged by the Assessee. 25 DCIT vs Balajee Loha Pvt. Ltd., Raipur 7. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the impugned order of the Tribunal has to be set aside, answering the question of law, framed and quoted above, in favour of the Assessee

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

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.244 & 245/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2016-2017 & 2017-2018) M/S Goyal Energy & Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Central-2, Raipur Behind Happy Restaurant, Ring Road-2, Tatiband Chowk, Raipur-492009 Pan No. :Aaccg 2758 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

Section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 8. Against the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 9. Ld.AR before us argued on the additional ground raised by the assessee and submitted that the assessment framed by the AO is not maintainable

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

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.244 & 245/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2016-2017 & 2017-2018) M/S Goyal Energy & Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Central-2, Raipur Behind Happy Restaurant, Ring Road-2, Tatiband Chowk, Raipur-492009 Pan No. :Aaccg 2758 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

Section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 8. Against the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 9. Ld.AR before us argued on the additional ground raised by the assessee and submitted that the assessment framed by the AO is not maintainable

SARVESH BARDIA,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, RAJNANDGAON

In the result, appeal filed by 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.299/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sarvesh Bardia Bardia Niwas, Sadar Bazar, Rajnandgaon (C.G.)-491 441 Pan: Aqbpb3485F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

section 68", I have no hesitation to held that the appellant has failed to discharge his onus to prove the creditworthiness of the above lenders.” 6.4. After going through the submissions made before me in support of appellant's contentions, I am of the considerable 8 Sarvesh Bardia Vs. ITO-1, Rajnandgaon opinion that the entire affair

SUBRAMANIAM SWAMINATHAN IYER, BHILAI,DURG vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed/partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.71/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Subramaniam Swaminathan Iyer 12-A/7, Nehru Nagar, Bhilai (C.G.)-490 020 Pan: Anwps2381P

Section 139 of the Act, therefore, no disallowance of the said amount was called for in his hands. 28. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short “DR”) relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 29. We have thoughtfully considered the aforesaid issue, and are of the view that the explanation of the assessee qua the addition

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. MESERS SHREE JAGDAMBA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 37 To 42/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15)

28,16,550/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) challenging the additions so made under s.40A(3) of the Act. The CIT(A) took note of the submissions made by the assessee and several case laws and found merit in various pleas raised on behalf of the assessee for inapplicability of Section