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), BHILAI vs. SHRI NITIN SANKHLA, DURG

In the result, grounds no 2 to 7 on this single issue of the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.98/Rpr/2020 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax- Vs Shri Nitin Sankhla 1(1), Bhilai 1St Floor, Navkar Bullion, Above Navin Jeweller, Jawahar Chowk, Durg Pan No. :Bbups 4874 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. : Shri Ravi Agarwal, Ca "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ila M. Parmar, Cit- Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02/06/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

section 142(1) along with query letter was issued on 04/10/2019 & 02/11/2019 The assessee was queried to explain the sources of his investment made during the financial year 01/04/2016 to 31/03/2017 and justify the same with documentary evidence. Notices u/s 133(6) were issued to various banks to furnish bank statements of the assessee. 3. The case

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

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 was duly discharged. 36. Unlike the facts involved in the aforementioned case, in the case of the present assessee company before us, we find that as it had failed to discharge the onus that was cast upon it as regards proving the authenticity of its claim of having received share application money from

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." (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

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

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 to 50 of PB, relevant finding on PN 47

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

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

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)

47,55,792/- is not payment made on 31.3.2010 but the payments were made during the year 2009-10. Same is true for the other assessment years also. AO has not denied that the payments did not relate to the business of the firm. The contention of the assessee is that the payment was not made in single

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)

47,55,792/- is not payment made on 31.3.2010 but the payments were made during the year 2009-10. Same is true for the other assessment years also. AO has not denied that the payments did not relate to the business of the firm. The contention of the assessee is that the payment was not made in single

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)

47,55,792/- is not payment made on 31.3.2010 but the payments were made during the year 2009-10. Same is true for the other assessment years also. AO has not denied that the payments did not relate to the business of the firm. The contention of the assessee is that the payment was not made in single

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)

47,55,792/- is not payment made on 31.3.2010 but the payments were made during the year 2009-10. Same is true for the other assessment years also. AO has not denied that the payments did not relate to the business of the firm. The contention of the assessee is that the payment was not made in single

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)

47,55,792/- is not payment made on 31.3.2010 but the payments were made during the year 2009-10. Same is true for the other assessment years also. AO has not denied that the payments did not relate to the business of the firm. The contention of the assessee is that the payment was not made in single

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)

47,55,792/- is not payment made on 31.3.2010 but the payments were made during the year 2009-10. Same is true for the other assessment years also. AO has not denied that the payments did not relate to the business of the firm. The contention of the assessee is that the payment was not made in single

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

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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), BHILAI vs. MESERS ABIS POULTRY PRIVATE LIMITED, RAJNANDGAON

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.233 & 234/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010 & 2011-2012) Acit-2(1), Bhilai Vs M/S Abis Poultry Private Limited, Baldeo Bag, Rajnandgaon Pan No. :Aaeca 87411 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

47 CCH 0404 it was held that provisions .of section 153A and 153C are search related provisions and these provisions were applicable only, relating to any undisclosed income on basis of seized documents found in search. In the case of Rawal Das Jaswani Vs. ACIT I (2015) 43 CCH 0606 I jurisdictional incriminating material found during the course