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

48 M/s. East West Finvest India Limited Vs.DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur 33. Be that as it may, as observed by the lower authorities and rightly so, the case of the assessee company falls within the realm of post- amended Section 68

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 131 were unserved and returned back to them. Therefore, conclusion of the above mentioned report is confusing and without proper inquiry because of on the contrary all the 48 alleged companies have well responded directly to your office and submitted, all the supporting evidences to prove their identity, genuineness and credentials of their companies.” 13 M/s. Trimurti Finvest

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

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 260A(7) read with Order XLI Rule 22 of CPC as interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Nazeer Ahmed (supra) we think that the ITAT should not have precluded the assessees from raising the issue in the appeals instituted by the Revenue, even without the necessity of filing any cross- objections. Accordingly, the additional substantial

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).

section 68, made the addition of Rs.3,48,50,000/- and 12 the interest thereon at Rs.37,94,738/- which

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

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

SUN AND SUN INFRAMETRIC PVT. LTD.,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.22/Rpr/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17)

48 hours from the date and time of signing the show-cause notice. 4. As per the show-cause notice, the Revisional Commissioner made wide ranging allegations to assail the assessment order so passed. The Revisional Commissioner alleged that the Assessing Officer has failed to carry out necessary verifications on certain points. As per the revisional order, the assessment order

SUN AND SUN INFRAMETRIC PVT. LTD.,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.21/Rpr/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16)

48 hours from the date and time of signing the show-cause notice. 4. As per the show-cause notice, the Revisional Commissioner made wide ranging allegations to assail the assessment order. The Revisional Commissioner alleged that the Assessing Officer has failed to carry out necessary verifications in respect of following points:- (i) During the year under consideration, the assessee

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

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

48,500/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A). Apropos the re-characterization of the donations of Rs. 1,47,41,000/- (supra) as anonymous donations under Sec. 115BBC of the Act, it was, inter alia, submitted by the assessee that as the complete details qua the identity of the donors a/w their names and addresses

NAVRATAN JEWELLERS, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of over aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 127/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

48,000/- as undisclosed income under sections 68, 69, and 69A of the Act and tax under section

MESERS FASHION HOUSE,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 4(3), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 217/Rpr/2018 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Fashion House, Malviya Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pin-492 001 Pan : Aacff3323M .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-4(3), Raipur (C.G.) ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri R.B. Doshi Revenue By : Smt. Anubhaa T. Goel

section 40(b) of I.T. Act, 1961. c) Rent. During the year under consideration, the assessee had paid shop rent of Rs. 48,000/- to Arvind Agrawal (HUF). The assessee occupies approx 500 sq.ft, of area from the aforesaid related party for which the rent comes to Rs. 4,000/- per month. It is hardly Rs. 8/- per month

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) ..

48,661/- Disallowance out of Mfg. Exp : 66,42,939/- 3 & CO No.13/RPR/2017 4. Against the said order of AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Now, the revenue is in further appeal before the Tribunal against the additions deleted by the CIT(A). 5. On Ground

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 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Learned CIT (AppeaIs)-2, Raipur has erred in setting aside the same to the Learned AO instead of deleting the impugned addition which is contrary to the decision of the then jurisdictional High Court in CIT v, Metachem Industries [2002] 245 1TR 160 (MP), hence, it is prayed that

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 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Learned CIT (AppeaIs)-2, Raipur has erred in setting aside the same to the Learned AO instead of deleting the impugned addition which is contrary to the decision of the then jurisdictional High Court in CIT v, Metachem Industries [2002] 245 1TR 160 (MP), hence, it is prayed that

SHRI SHAKTIDHAM INFRAVENTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,BILASPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , BILASPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 71/Rpr/2020) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16)

48,700/- and as per balance sheet he has made investment of Rs. 14,69,950/- in this company only and he has rib other asset. 10 Ramkumar Kashyap 570000 Cash deposit of Rs. 2,88,000/- and transfer amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- on 05.01.2015 and 20.01.2015 respectively. The bank account shows, no other significant transactions. Further returned

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