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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), RAIPUR vs. MESERS ARYAN BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR

In the result, both appeal of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee stand dismissed in terms of our observations

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

68 of the Act?" 4. "Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by giving a finding which is contrary to the ratio of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Rajmandir Estates Pvt Ltd vs. PCIT-III, Kolkata

PRAKASH KUMAR KSHATRIYA,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RAJNANDGAON, RAJNANDGOAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.436/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Prakash Kumar Kshatriya House No.9, Ward No.44, Kaurin Bhata, Shiv Colony, Rajnandgaon-491 441 (C.G.) Pan: Cdhpk3190B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

35, in such case, once the assessee has opted as “No” regarding receiving of any notices/communications from the department through email, therefore, the assessee cannot be held at any fault for the delay caused. Accordingly, 3 Prakash Kumar Kshatriya Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Rajnandgaon the said delay of 42 days is condoned. I take guidance from the judicial pronouncements

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

TRILOK CHAND JAISWAL,SAKTI vs. ITO WARD 2(1) BILASPUR, VYAPAR VIHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.180/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Trilok Chand Jaiswal Main Road, Near Santoshi Mandir, Sakti Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh-495 689 Pan: Aewpj9961R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

Section 68 of the Act. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. P. Mohanakala [2007] 291 ITR 278/161 Taxman 169 clearly held that in case where explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source of sums found credited in the books of account is not satisfactory then same would constitute prima-facie evidence

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

DURGAWATI PANDAY,BAIKUNTHPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD NO 01, AMBIKAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.14/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2020-21 Durgawati Panday Ward No.9, Mahalpara, Baikunthpur, Koriya Chhattisgarh-497 335 Pan: Dsipp8404G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Ambikapur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

68 of the Act and the Tribunal was not competent to make the said addition under Section 69-A of the Act, the entire order of the Tribunal stand vitiated in law. Accordingly, we answer the question of law, as framed above, in favour of the appellant-assessee and against the Revenue and hold that the Tribunal

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

35 Taxman 598 (Gujarat). Earlier, in the case of CIT v Mohanakala(P)(2007)161Taxman 169/291 ITR 278 (SC), while considering the scope of section 68

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

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR PATEL,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 212/Rpr/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18)

35 (page no. 65 to 68 of the APB), we find that the issues i.e., (i) the addition u/s 68 to be taxed at special rate u/s 115BBE and (ii) the applicability of section

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 as unworkable. 40. We find that considering the facts that the explanation of the assessee as regards the addition of Rs.2 crores (supra) in his “capital a/c” was considering the remand report filed by the A.O; the rejoinder filed by the assessee, had rendered the same as contentious, therefore, the assessee had requested

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

section 68 are also set aside. [Para 27] iii) ITO vs Zexus Air Services P. Ltd. (2021) 189 ITD 434 (Del.), PN 21 to 34 of PB, relevant finding on PN 30, para no. 11 & 12, held as under : 11. We find some force in the above argument of the learned counsel for the assessee. As mentioned

M/S ANJANI ASSOCIATES,BILASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), BILASPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S Anjani Associates, Ito, Ward 1(2), Opp. Jain Plaza, Link Road, Bilaspur (Cg). Vs. Bilaspur (Cg).

68, on account of unsecured loan received by the assessee. The addition made by AO and sustained by CIT(A) is arbitrary, baseless and not justified. 2. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs.37,23,402/- out of the disallowance of Rs.37,94,738/- made by the AO out of the interest account. The disallowance made

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION)-1, RAIPUR vs. SHRI CHAITANY MAHAPRABHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHAN, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 235/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer, (Exemption)-1, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Chaitany Mahaprabhu Shikshan Sansthan 2, Jindal Niwas, Ramsagarpara, Raipur(C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aaits4845F ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal & Smt. Laxmi Sharma, Cas Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2022

68 of the Act or under section 115BBC of the Act. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of the Id. CIT(A) who has rightly deleted the addition." 6.2 The Lucknow Bench in ITA No. 665/Lkw/2016 vide order dated 31.08.2018 has dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue by holding as under: "5. We have heard

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)), BHILAI vs. SHRI SANJAY JAIN, BHILAI

In the result ground no. 06 of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: Ita 55/Rpr/2020 (Assessment Years:2014-15) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, V Shri Sanjay Jain, Bhilai S C/O M/S Sidhharth Industries, Plot No. 38, Industrial Estate, Bhilai, C.G. Pan: Aet Pj1859D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) . (""यथ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ravi Agarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 23-08-2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 09-11-2023 Pronouncement

section 68. We thus, are of the opinion that ground no. 3 of the revenue should also be re-adjudicated afresh a/w the issue 14 Sanjay Jain regarding additions u/s 68, accordingly the same is directed to restore back to the files of Ld. CIT(A). In the result ground no. 3 of the appeal is partly allowed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1), RAIPUR vs. M/S SUPER IRON AND STEEL PVT LTD.,, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and Cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.261/Rpr/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Acit-4(1), Raipur Vs M/S Super Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd., Pritpal Farm House, Vip Road, Raipur(C.G.) Pan No. : Aaics 2579 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) & Cross Objection No.13/Rpr/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.261/Rpr/2017) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2010-2011) M/S Super Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit-4(1), Raipur Pritpal Farm House, Vip Road, Raipur(C.G.) Pan No. : Aaics 2579 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

section 68 of the IT Act. It is submitted that the transactions were made through proper banking channel, supporting evidences for such banking transactions 18 & CO No.13/RPR/2017 were also submitted to AO, thus, the onus cast upon the assessee u/s 68 was duly discharged. The assessee was unable to submit the confirmations from the parties due to compelling circumstances

MESERS METEX ENGINEERS,BHILAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHILAI

In the result Ground No 8 of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.238/Rpr/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-2016) M/S Metex Engineers, Vs Ito, Ward-1(2), Bhilai Shop No.10-11, Ganesh Complex, Shakti Vihar, Risali Bhilai, Durg Pan No. :Aawfm 8852 G & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.247/Rpr/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Ito, Ward-1(2), Bhilai Vs M/S Metex Engineers, Shop No.10-11, Ganesh Complex, Shakti Vihar, Risali Bhilai, Durg Pan No. :Aawfm 8852 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.B.Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V.K.Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 24/04/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

Section 68: 6. At the outset Ld AR of the assessee has preferred not to press Ground Number 1 of the appeal by submitting as under: Ground No.1 - of the assessee’s appeal is directed against addition of Rs.5,50,000/- is not pressed as the Learned AO has allowed relief as per direction of Learned CIT (A) while