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 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

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, i.e., as had been made available on the statute vide the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013. For the sake of clarity, Sec. 68 (post-amended – as applies to the case of the assessee company) is culled out as under : "68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained

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

42 days is condoned. I take guidance from the judicial pronouncements in the cases of viz. (i) Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Civil Appeal Nos……………../2025 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310-26311/2024, dated 31.01.2025; (ii) Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Raipur (C.G.), TAX Case No.17/2025, dated 24.02.2025, and (iii) Inder

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 (as was applicable in its case for the year under consideration), an explanation had been provided as regards the “nature” and “source” of the sum of Rs. 45 lacs (out of Rs. 1,10,03,000/-) recorded as an investment towards share application money/share premium in the books of the assessee company against

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) ..

42 Taxmann.com 251 (Guj) and CIT Dhariwal Brothers Vs. ITO AY : 2013-14 Vs. Mahavir Crimpers, 95 Taxman.com 323 (Guj) have held that when the Department has accepted the factum of repayment, the additions under Section 68

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)

68 of the Act, it was open to the department to take recourse of section 131 or section 133(6) of the Act, if they were to further proceed, that not having done so, the First Appellate Authority was within its jurisdiction to conclude on facts and law, in favour of the assessee. 6.3 In the case

ASHOK KUMAR MALOO, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.308/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ashok Kumar Maloo Ground Floor, Halwai Line, Sadar Bazar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Adtpm9149C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

42,500 were made into the bank account. It is an undisputed fact that no cash deposits were made from 01.04.2016 till 08.11.2016, and no cash book was produced during the assessment stage. 6.2 It is also on record that the assessee filed the return under Section 44AD, and in the course of assessment admitted: "Proper Cash Book

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR vs. MANAV MOTORS, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is disposed-off, in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 151/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18)

42,648/- and have been considered as unexplained cash credits of the assessee for the AY 2017-18 and the same are decided to be taxed under the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. 4. Aggrieved with the aforesaid observations and the order passed by the Ld. AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC

RAGHVENDRA SINGH THAKUR, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.242/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Raghvendra Singh Thakur, H.No.238, Sarona, Tatibandh, Raipur, 492001, Chhattisgarh Pan: Akbpt7616E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

42(1) dated 20.8.2021. Perusal of earlier reply filed by the assessee reveals that he is one of the joint holders who had made cash deposits of Rs. 3479000/- in Oriental Bank of Commerce 14342011014335. Therefore, for the sake of natural Justice 1/3rd of Rs. 34,79,000/- Rs. 11,59,670/- is treated as his Unexplained Income

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR vs. M/S OMAX MINERALS PVT. LTD. GADUMARIA, RAIGARH

In the result appeal ITA No

section 68 of the Act? 4. 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 of Rs. 2,25,00,000/- made by the AO relying upon the decision in cases which are distinguishable in facts from the case of the assessee

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

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

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)

42,06,726/- was made on a single day i.e. on 31.3.2009. Similarly for the AY 2010-11, the allegation of the AO is that the payment of Rs. 4,47,55,792/- was made on a single day i.e. on 31.3.2010 and for AY 2011-12, the allegation of the AO is that the payment

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)

42,06,726/- was made on a single day i.e. on 31.3.2009. Similarly for the AY 2010-11, the allegation of the AO is that the payment of Rs. 4,47,55,792/- was made on a single day i.e. on 31.3.2010 and for AY 2011-12, the allegation of the AO is that the payment

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)

42,06,726/- was made on a single day i.e. on 31.3.2009. Similarly for the AY 2010-11, the allegation of the AO is that the payment of Rs. 4,47,55,792/- was made on a single day i.e. on 31.3.2010 and for AY 2011-12, the allegation of the AO is that the payment

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)

42,06,726/- was made on a single day i.e. on 31.3.2009. Similarly for the AY 2010-11, the allegation of the AO is that the payment of Rs. 4,47,55,792/- was made on a single day i.e. on 31.3.2010 and for AY 2011-12, the allegation of the AO is that the payment

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)

42,06,726/- was made on a single day i.e. on 31.3.2009. Similarly for the AY 2010-11, the allegation of the AO is that the payment of Rs. 4,47,55,792/- was made on a single day i.e. on 31.3.2010 and for AY 2011-12, the allegation of the AO is that the payment

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)

42,06,726/- was made on a single day i.e. on 31.3.2009. Similarly for the AY 2010-11, the allegation of the AO is that the payment of Rs. 4,47,55,792/- was made on a single day i.e. on 31.3.2010 and for AY 2011-12, the allegation of the AO is that the payment

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 cannot be invoked, Ld AR has submitted the following case laws:- i) CIT vs P. Mohanakala & Ors. (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC), PN 42