M/S. G.P. INFRAVENTURES ,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(4), RAIPUR

The appeal of the department stands disposed off

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No.76/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), V M/S G.P. Infraventures, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, S Shree Tower, Shankar Nagar, Central Revenue Building, Raipur (C.G.) Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aanfg6074B (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) : (""यथ" / Respondent) (Ita No.94/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S G.P. Infraventures, V Income Tax Officer-1(4), Shree Tower, Shankar Nagar, S Raipur Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aanfg6074B (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of : 23.11.2023 7Pronouncement

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should be deleted or set aside?" 25 ITA 76 & 94/RPR/2020 G.P. Infraventures 4. The High Court, disagreeing with the Tribunal, held, that the provisions of Section 142 and sub-sections (2) and (3

DOLPHIN PROMOTERS AND BUILDERS,RAIPUR vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 58/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2011-12)

68,00,000 on the count of 'sale proceeds of immovable property sold on 4-11-20, treating it as undisclosed business receipts, which is unjustified and is liable to be deleted. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.50,00,000 made

ARUNA TIWARI,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 90/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Aruna Tiwari 762, Sundar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Adbpt4977B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

section 263 of the Act being highly unjustified and not in accordance with the provisions of law, may please be cancelled. GROUND NO. IV 4. That the Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 2. Although the registry has pointed

SHRI GUNJAN KUMAR BIHANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3 (4), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the captioned appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.122/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Gunjan Kumar Bihani Ashoka Ratan, Khamhardih, Shankar Nagar, Raipur-492 009 (C.G) Pan: Ajupb5787C

section, such categorical observations and the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, cannot be watered down, taking support from an earlier general order of Hon’ble Apex Court i.e., the judgment in the case of “NTPC”(supra). Consequently, I am expressing my view in the present case by way of a separate order with the concurring

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BHILAI vs. MESERS STEELCO ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED, BHILAI

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.88/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

section 14A of the Act provides for disallowances of the expenditure even where taxpayer in a particular year has not earned any exempt income? 6. The order of the Id. CIT(A) is erroneous both in law and on facts. 3 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company having income from

SHRI ASHIT KUMAR DEY,JAGDALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAGDALPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood () & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai (Accountantmember) I.T.A. No. 119/Rpr/2018 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Ashit Kumar Dey The Income Tax Officer Uttam Kumar Dey, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Fish Market, Sanjay Behind Khankar Market,Jagdalpur, Talkies,Civil Lines, Bastar - 494 001 Jagdalpur(C.G.) Pan No. Ajxpd4157D (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri S. R. Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Shri G. N. Singh, D.R Date Of Hearing : 07/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09/06/2022

Section 68 in the hands of the assessee. 10. Resultantly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.” ITA No. 119/RPR/2018 AY: 2009-10 9 Ashit Kumar Dey V.ITO As the facts and the issue involved in the present case remains the same as were there in the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, therefore, respectfully following the same, we herein conclude that

JOINT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE -I, BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD, BILASPUR(CG)

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury,Jm Sl.

3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in law and in fact in deleting the addition amounting to Rs.6323.15 Lakhs which has been made by disallowing the expenditure incurred on social Overheads (fuel and power) in spite of the facts on records that the assessee company failed to furnish

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-RANGE-1,, BILASPUR vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED,, BILASPUR

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury,Jm Sl.

3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in law and in fact in deleting the addition amounting to Rs.6323.15 Lakhs which has been made by disallowing the expenditure incurred on social Overheads (fuel and power) in spite of the facts on records that the assessee company failed to furnish

HARJINDAR SINGH BAL,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), BHILAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 57/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Harjindar Singh Bal Ward- No.29, Hospital Colony, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan : Adepb7178F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bhilai (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

Section 68 of the Act. Therefore, on this count itself the impugned addition Rs.10,53,000/- deserves to be deleted." We are of the considered view that as the bank account of an assessee cannot be held to be the 'books' of an assessee maintained for any previous year, thus no addition under Sec. 68

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)

section 68, where a company receives share application money from a person then the source from whom such person has received money will also be investigated. In case of a company receiving loan, there is no such prerequisite u/s 68. In the present case the ADIT issued summons on 29/12/2014 to the 14 companies but the summons were returned

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)

section 68, where a company receives share application money from a person then the source from whom such person has received money will also be investigated. In case of a company receiving loan, there is no such prerequisite u/s 68. In the present case the ADIT issued summons on 29/12/2014 to the 14 companies but the summons were returned

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)

section 68, where a company receives share application money from a person then the source from whom such person has received money will also be investigated. In case of a company receiving loan, there is no such prerequisite u/s 68. In the present case the ADIT issued summons on 29/12/2014 to the 14 companies but the summons were returned

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)

section 68, where a company receives share application money from a person then the source from whom such person has received money will also be investigated. In case of a company receiving loan, there is no such prerequisite u/s 68. In the present case the ADIT issued summons on 29/12/2014 to the 14 companies but the summons were returned

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)

section 68, where a company receives share application money from a person then the source from whom such person has received money will also be investigated. In case of a company receiving loan, there is no such prerequisite u/s 68. In the present case the ADIT issued summons on 29/12/2014 to the 14 companies but the summons were returned

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)

section 68, where a company receives share application money from a person then the source from whom such person has received money will also be investigated. In case of a company receiving loan, there is no such prerequisite u/s 68. In the present case the ADIT issued summons on 29/12/2014 to the 14 companies but the summons were returned

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 :

3. "Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) was justified by ignoring that the government has brought amendment in the section 68

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

3. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and on the points of the law Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition or Rs. 5,07,50,000/- made by the AO while genuineness of source of source of share application money/premium was not proved as mandated in section 68

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 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on irrelevant considerations and arbitrary grounds. 3. That the learned Commissioner