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." (emphasis supplied by us) 30. Considering the facts as were involved in the case before the Hon'ble Apex Court it was observed, viz. (i). that the investor companies had filed returns for a negligible taxable income which would show that the investors did not have the financial capacity to invest the substantial amount

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), RAIPUR vs. MESERSS T.C. BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR

In the result CO filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assistant Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Tc Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 1(1) Vasudev, B-5, Sector-5, Raipur, (C.G.) Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aacct4516F Cross Objection No. 26/Rpr/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 173/Rpr/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Tc Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 1(1) Vasudev, B-5, Sector-5, Raipur, (C.G.) Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aacct4516F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 16-08-2023 घोषणाक" तार"ख/Date : 27-10-2023 Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am:

68,05,400/-, wherein the share of assessee’s was 50% i.e. Rs. 34,02,700/-. This property was a part of the residential project "Banyan Tree Enclave" at Shankar Nagar, Raipur. The assessee had entered into joint venture on 28.12.2006 with M/s Biltech Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (AACCB2418A) for development of 1.977 Hectares of land situated at Shankar Nagar, Raipur

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR (CG) vs. M/S VANDANA VIDYUT LIMITED,, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.138/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Vandana Vidyut Limited Vandana Building, M.G Road, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaacv7850L ……""यथ" / Respondent

section 68 as per which the share subscriber in the assessee company should explain the source of funds out of which payment has been made to the assessee. ---Assessee has furnished documents and balance sheet and bank accounts of the three investor companies explaining the source. Fund flow of the three companies having common director was also provided

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

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

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

SHRI SHRI NISHANT JAIN,BILASPUR(CG) vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,RANGE-I, BILASPUR(CG)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.199/Rpr/2016 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Nishant Jain, Vs Jcit, Range-1, Bilaspur(Cg) M/S Landmark Engineer, Flat No.27, Shantinagar, Ring Road No.2, Bilaspur Pan No. : Agepj 9793 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

45,000 towards alleged unexplained Loans/Deposits Under Section 68 were made by the AO. Details of all the required

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

68 of the Act, addition of Rs.68,62,394/- on account of other credits, addition of Rs.6,12,607/- on account of deemed sales tax, addition of Rs.55,06,957/- u/s 14A read with rule 8D of the I. T. Rules, 1962 and disallowance of Rs. 1,45,75,000/- on account of deemed dividend

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", I have no hesitation to held that the appellant has failed to discharge his onus to prove the creditworthiness of the above lenders.” 6.4. After going through the submissions made before me in support of appellant's contentions, I am of the considerable 8 Sarvesh Bardia Vs. ITO-1, Rajnandgaon opinion that the entire affair of the appellant

SHRI SHRI DEVI CHAND JAIN,KAWARDHA (C.G.) vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, RAJNANDGAON

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 277/Rpr/2016 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 78/Rpr/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Devi Chand Jain Prop. M/S. Loonkaram Devi Chand Jain, Main Road, Pandariya (C.G.) Pan : Abfpj6738Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Rajnandgaon. ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri S.R Rao, A.R Revenue By : Shri G.N Singh, D.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2022 A.Ys.2008-09

45,050/- on 20.12.2006, i.e, after more than two months of receipt of advance. It was observed by the CIT (Appeals) that the balance amount of Rs.1,50,080/- (cr.) was thereafter brought forward by the assessee to the succeeding years and was shown as an outstanding liability. Observing that not only the assessee had failed to place on record

SHRI DEVI CHAND JAIN vs. I.T.O. WARD-2, RAJNANDGAON

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 277/Rpr/2016 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 78/Rpr/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Devi Chand Jain Prop. M/S. Loonkaram Devi Chand Jain, Main Road, Pandariya (C.G.) Pan : Abfpj6738Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Rajnandgaon. ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri S.R Rao, A.R Revenue By : Shri G.N Singh, D.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2022 A.Ys.2008-09

45,050/- on 20.12.2006, i.e, after more than two months of receipt of advance. It was observed by the CIT (Appeals) that the balance amount of Rs.1,50,080/- (cr.) was thereafter brought forward by the assessee to the succeeding years and was shown as an outstanding liability. Observing that not only the assessee had failed to place on record

PRAKASH GODHWANI,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.136/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Prakash Godhwani, Vs Ito-1(2), Raipur Prop. M/S Prakash Agency, Near Girls High School, Neora(Cg) Pan No. : Aglpg 2669 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

45 46 to 51 52 & 53 Smt. Anju Godhwani 54 to 61 62 to 64 65 to 67 Smt. Sulochana Godhwani 68 to 80 81 to 86 87 & 88 3 2. Lender Capital vis a vis loan Reflected in Reflected in bank lender’s statement balance sheet Arjundas

DURGA SHANKAR CHODHERY, SARAIPALI,MAHASAMUND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-MAHASAMUND, MAHASAMUND

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

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

section 68 of Act hence, the additions made as unexplained cash credit is highly illegal, bad in law, unsustainable and not in accordance with the provisions of law. Further, the Ld.AO 8i the Ld.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the cash deposits has immediate & proximate nexus with the cash withdrawals effectuated by the appellant and hence, the source

SMT. SEEMA AGRAWAL,RAIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD -I, RAIGARH

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.179/Rpr/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Seema Agrawal, Vs Ito, Ward-1, Raigarh Sewa Kunj Road, Near Girls College, Raigarh (C.G.) Pan No. : Affpa 4990 K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) ..

45 of PR). No addition on this account was made in the hands of Sunil Kumar Agrawal before ITSC. v) Hon’ble ITSC specifically observed in para 31 of its order (page no. 80 of PB) that Department was not able to establish re-routing of funds as alleged and the inference drawn would not be warranted and that

M/S LNS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,DURG(CG) vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI

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

68 of the Act. 3. During the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings and on perusing the balance sheet of the assessee, the A.O noticed that the balance sheet shows share application money at Rs. 18,85,50,572/- pending for allotment of shares. The details of outstanding share application money are as under:- 1 Shri Abhinav Khasgiwala

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)

68. It is the submission that the very assumption of jurisdiction is contrary to the facts of law and fact on record hence proceedings u/s 263 of the Act and impugned order dated 13.03.2024 is liable to be quashed. Ld. AR placed his reliance on following judgments on this issue: (i) Smt. Rekha Shekhawat vs PCIT, ITAT- Jaipur