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

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

AGRAWAL INFRABUILD PRIVATE LIMITED ,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, RAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.10 & 11/Rpr/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Agrawal Infrabuild Private Limited, Vs Acit, Central Circle-Ii, Raipur 1St Floor, V.R.Plaza, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aafca 6636 C (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

section 68 - Addition is called for. Pramila Investment and Finance Ltd. v. ITO (2013) 22 ITJ 149 (Trib. =Indore). 3. CIT vs Bikram Singh (Delhi High Court): P Mohankala 291 ITR 278 (SC): Diza Holdings 255 ITR 573 (Ker): CIT vs Precision Finance 208 ITR 265 (Cal~ wherein it has been held that if the lenders do not have

AGRAWAL INFRABUILD PRIVATE LIMITED ,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, RAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.10 & 11/Rpr/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Agrawal Infrabuild Private Limited, Vs Acit, Central Circle-Ii, Raipur 1St Floor, V.R.Plaza, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aafca 6636 C (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

section 68 - Addition is called for. Pramila Investment and Finance Ltd. v. ITO (2013) 22 ITJ 149 (Trib. =Indore). 3. CIT vs Bikram Singh (Delhi High Court): P Mohankala 291 ITR 278 (SC): Diza Holdings 255 ITR 573 (Ker): CIT vs Precision Finance 208 ITR 265 (Cal~ wherein it has been held that if the lenders do not have

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

section 68. 5. That the ld. lower authorities have erred in law and in fact by relying on irrelevant and factually incorrect evidences without providing the appellant an opportunity to cross-examination or rebut the same in complete violation of principle of natural justice. 6. That the ld. lower authorities have passed the orders sans of any jurisdiction when

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

section 68. 5. That the ld. lower authorities have erred in law and in fact by relying on irrelevant and factually incorrect evidences without providing the appellant an opportunity to cross-examination or rebut the same in complete violation of principle of natural justice. 6. That the ld. lower authorities have passed the orders sans of any jurisdiction when

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

section 68. 5. That the ld. lower authorities have erred in law and in fact by relying on irrelevant and factually incorrect evidences without providing the appellant an opportunity to cross-examination or rebut the same in complete violation of principle of natural justice. 6. That the ld. lower authorities have passed the orders sans of any jurisdiction when

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

section 68. 5. That the ld. lower authorities have erred in law and in fact by relying on irrelevant and factually incorrect evidences without providing the appellant an opportunity to cross-examination or rebut the same in complete violation of principle of natural justice. 6. That the ld. lower authorities have passed the orders sans of any jurisdiction when

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

section 68. 5. That the ld. lower authorities have erred in law and in fact by relying on irrelevant and factually incorrect evidences without providing the appellant an opportunity to cross-examination or rebut the same in complete violation of principle of natural justice. 6. That the ld. lower authorities have passed the orders sans of any jurisdiction when

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

32 M/s. Tripco Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT-1(1), Raipur shareholder company in the books of account of the assessee company towards investment in its share application money/premium, we, thus, in the absence of compliance of the “1st Proviso” to Section 68

M/S POORNACHAND AGRAWAL, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, 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. 104/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Pooranchand Agrawal C/O. Bagadia Enterprises, Near Shiv Talkies, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495001 Pan : Aaifp8483G

68, appex court observed as under: 6 M/s. Pooranchand Agrawal Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 “……. The expression 'the assessee offers an explanation means where the assessee offers no proper, reasonable and acceptable explanation as regards the sums found credited in the books maintained by the assesses……” 1. iv) Now , let us revert back to the facts of this case

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

THE CHHATTISGARH STATE POWER GENERATION COMPANY LIMITED, RAIPUR,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(2),RAIPUR, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.16/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. O/O. Executive Director-Finance Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.24/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

32. Ground of appeal no. 4 relates to addition of Rs. 19,98,021/- on account of remission and cessation of liability. The Assessing Officer relied on the judgment of CIT Vs. Sundaram lyengar and 15 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. ITA No.24/RPR/2022 Sons Ltd, 222 ITR 344 and held that as the cheque had become stale

CHHATTISGARH STATE POWER GENERATION CO. LTD.,RAIPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.16/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. O/O. Executive Director-Finance Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.24/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

32. Ground of appeal no. 4 relates to addition of Rs. 19,98,021/- on account of remission and cessation of liability. The Assessing Officer relied on the judgment of CIT Vs. Sundaram lyengar and 15 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. ITA No.24/RPR/2022 Sons Ltd, 222 ITR 344 and held that as the cheque had become stale

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 of the Act stood discharged by the Assessee.” Also, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rohini Builders, (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Del.), had held, that it is not for the assessee to prove the genuineness of the cash deposits in the bank accounts of the creditors

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 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5.2. The appellant has submitted that it is the result of transfer entry made by appellant, transferring credit balances appearing in the account of creditors in the books of business concerns, to the capital account of appellant. These transfers have been made in two years: - AY 2011-12 Rs.1

M/S RADHIKA WATER & AMUSEMENT PARK INDS,,BILASPUR(CG) vs. I.T.O. WARD 1(2), BILASPUR(CG)

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.320/Rpr/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 M/S. Radhika Water & Amusement Park Industries, Dayalband, Bilaspur (C.G.) Pan : Aaifk7321K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Bilaspur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

68, on account of capital introduced by the partner H.K, Sachdeo (HUF). The addition made by the A.O and confirmed by the CIT(A) is illegal and not justified. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.1,25,350/- made by the A.O on account of salary expenses

SHRI SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR JHA,BHILAI(CG) vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI(CG)

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

32,84,060/- u/s.69 of the Act, Rs.1730/- on account of amount credited in 2 the bank account and Rs.46,803/- on account of suppressed contractual receipts. 3. Against the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Now, being aggrieved with the order