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

section 14A, as it was added back in the income of the assessee in preceding Assessment Year i.e. 2010-11.” 52. At the very outset of the hearing of the appeal the Ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘AR’) for the assessee submitted that he was not pressing the ground of appeal No.1. In view of the concession

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), BHILAI vs. MESERS ABIS POULTRY PRIVATE LIMITED, RAJNANDGAON

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.233 & 234/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010 & 2011-2012) Acit-2(1), Bhilai Vs M/S Abis Poultry Private Limited, Baldeo Bag, Rajnandgaon Pan No. :Aaeca 87411 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

68 of the Act. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271 (1)(c) of the Act are separately initiated. Consequently, additions of Rs. 2,05,00,000/- for the AY 2009-10 and Rs. 1,50,00,000/- for the AY 2011-12 were made. 5. Against the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A), wherein the appeal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), BHILAI vs. MESERS ABIS POULTRY PRIVATE LIMITED, RAJNANDGAON

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.233 & 234/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010 & 2011-2012) Acit-2(1), Bhilai Vs M/S Abis Poultry Private Limited, Baldeo Bag, Rajnandgaon Pan No. :Aaeca 87411 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

68 of the Act. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271 (1)(c) of the Act are separately initiated. Consequently, additions of Rs. 2,05,00,000/- for the AY 2009-10 and Rs. 1,50,00,000/- for the AY 2011-12 were made. 5. Against the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A), wherein the appeal

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

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(2), RAIPUR (CG) vs. M/S MARUTI CLEAN COAL & POWER LTD,, RAIPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Ram Lal Negi)

302, Ram Residency, Shankar Nagar, Raipur(CG) (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AADCN4801C Appellant by : Shri P.K. Mishra, D.R. Respondent by : Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv. , Raman Chawla, C.A. & Soumya Singh, Adv. (आदेश)/ORDER 2 & C.O. No. 01/RPR/16 and Others . A.Y. 2004-05 Date of hearing : 05 -03-2018 Date of Pronouncement : 07 -03-2018 PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. This appeal

SARTHAK ISPAT PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 431/Rpr/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2012-13) Sarthak Ispat Pvt. Ltd., V Income Tax Officer-2(1), Raipur S Udaya Society, Vivekanand Ashram, Raipur, 492001, C.G. Pan: Aalcs5029H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) . (""थ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Subhash Agrawal, Adv. राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S. L. Anuragi, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2025

68 on account of share capital received by the appellant, disregarding and ignoring legal and cogent evidences available on record. The addition made by AO is arbitrary, baseless and not justified. 2. The Assessing Officer erred in making disallowance of Rs. 4,76,76,469/- on account of various expenses/purchases observing that the same were paid in cash and remained

BIPUL PAUL, PANKHANJORE,KANKER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-KANKER, KANKER

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of over aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 504/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), dated 26.09.2024, for the Assessment Year 2017-18, which in turn arises from the order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 17.12.2019, passed by Income Tax Officer, Ward- Pakhanjore, (in short “Ld. AR”). 2 Bipul Paul Vs. ITO, Ward-Kanker 2. The grounds of appeal raised

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), RAIPUR vs. MESERS SATYANARAYAN NATHULAL, TILDA-NEORA

In the result appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaiआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 178/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Income Tax Officer-1(2) Raipur (C.G) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S Satyanarayan Nathulal Gandhi Chowk, Tilda-Neora Dist: Raipur (C.G) Pan : Aakfs1487K ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ravi Agrawal Revenue By : Shri Debashish Lahiri

68,22,775/- out of total addition made by the AO as the assessee could not substantiate the alleged transaction as genuine by producing documentary evidence from genuine dealers for genuine purchase?” 5. Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) was justified in accepting the fresh evidence produced by the assessee