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 of the Act (as had been made available on the statute vide the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013), observed that in the absence of an explanation as regards the source of the funds from where the share applicant/subscriber companies had made the respective investments with the assessee company, the onus that was cast upon the latter

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 of the Act (as had been made available on the statute vide the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013), observed that in the absence of an explanation as regards the source of the funds from where the share applicant/subscriber companies had made the respective investments with the assessee company, the onus that was cast upon the latter

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

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

34,450/- under the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Further the AO found that the assessee has received share capital from Lovely Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. of Rs.2,59,00,000/-, In this regard, the AO found that Lovely Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. did not have any source to make investments in assessee i.e. Vandana Ispat

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 of the Act could stand have disowned by the assessee having discharging its onus providing requisite information and details, therefore, addition made u/s.68 of the Act cannot be sustained. Alternatively, even if the source of source is to be taken into consideration, since the investor was already taxed on the funds which was raised by them

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 of the Act could stand have disowned by the assessee having discharging its onus providing requisite information and details, therefore, addition made u/s.68 of the Act cannot be sustained. Alternatively, even if the source of source is to be taken into consideration, since the investor was already taxed on the funds which was raised by them

ARDENT STEELS PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 337/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"Assessment Year: 2020-21)

68,114/- by making a disallowance on account of Health & Education Cess paid for Rs. 47,34,164/- and claimed as expenditure under any other item allowable as Deduction in Schedule BP in ITR. Subsequently, the case record of the assessee are examined by the Ld. PCIT and have observed that during the relevant period the assessee company made purchases

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

SEEMA DEVI AGRAWAL,RAIGARH, CHHATTISGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BILASPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Seema Devi Agrawal C/O. Sunil Kumar Agrawal Sewa Kund Road, Raigarh-496 001 (C.G.) Pan: Affpa4990K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

34 (SC). The facts and circumstances of the said referred judgment are substantially different 6 Seema Devi Agrawal Vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur from facts in assessee’s case hence is misplaced by the revenue and further, it is observed that the Quasi-Judicial authority is duty bound to apply provisions of the Act in its strictest sense

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 are constrained to sustain the addition to the said extent. (F). NCR Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. Sr. No Name of the Amount No. of share Face value Premium @ shareholder received ( Rs.) allotted @10/- per 100/- per company share share (in Rs.) 1. M/s. NCR 25,00,000 200000 Nil Nil Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. (i). Although

MESERS DHARIWAL BROTHERS,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.186/Rpr/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14) बनाम/ M/S. Dhariwal Brothers, Income Tax Officer- C/O. Raymond Retail Shop, Ward (3)(1), Raipur Vs. Jeewan Bima Marg, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfd 6404 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) ..

68 of the Act. In this view of the matter, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) on this point and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition on this score. 3. Consequently, Ground No.1 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 4. Ground No.2 concerns ad-hoc disallowance out of vehicle, travelling and telephone expenses

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

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 Act would fail. It was, thus, the claim of the assessee that 34 Subramaniam Swaminathan

M/S. SUMIT GLOBAL PVT. LTD.,RAIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 1, RAIGARH

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.70/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Sumit Global Pvt. Ltd. C/O Kanha Electricals & Electronics, Nanhu Nagar, Vijay Nagar, P.O. Kirodimalnagar, Raigargh (C.G.) Pan : Aaocs8271J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1, Raigarh (C.G.)

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (iii) Whether the assessee has received share application of Rs. 2,26,41,500/- in assessment year prior to assessment year 2014-15 or not is a matter of verification. Accordingly, the AO is directed to verify the correctness of the figures given in para (i) above. In case

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) ..

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. In this