M/S. G.P. INFRAVENTURES ,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(4), RAIPUR

The appeal of the department stands disposed off

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No.76/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), V M/S G.P. Infraventures, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, S Shree Tower, Shankar Nagar, Central Revenue Building, Raipur (C.G.) Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aanfg6074B (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) : (""यथ" / Respondent) (Ita No.94/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S G.P. Infraventures, V Income Tax Officer-1(4), Shree Tower, Shankar Nagar, S Raipur Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aanfg6074B (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of : 23.11.2023 7Pronouncement

section 40A (3) is clearly attracted? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,42,85,000/- by way of disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act on account of amount paid towards purchase of land which is stock-in trade

DOLPHIN PROMOTERS AND BUILDERS,RAIPUR vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 58/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2011-12)

68,00,000 on the count of 'sale proceeds of immovable property sold on 4-11-20, treating it as undisclosed business receipts, which is unjustified and is liable to be deleted. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.50,00,000 made

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1), RAIPUR vs. AVIRAL FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.13/Rpr/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Ito-4(1) Aviral Finance Pvt. Ltd. Raipur Ground Floor, Nalghar Chowk, Raipur – 492 001 [Pan: Aabcg 2701 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By Shri Praveen Khandelwal & Shri Praveen Goyal, Cas ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.07.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2023

2. Avani Golechha 22,00,000 11,00,000/- 11,00,000/- 11000 16.09.2016 3. Vivek Golechha 25,00,000 12,50,000/- 12,50,000/- 12500 16.09.2016 (HUF) 4. Ankush Golechha 34,80,000 17,40,000/- 17,40,000/- 17400 16.09.2016 5. Praksh Golechha 36,00,000 18,00,000/- 18,00,000/- 18000 16.09.2016 6. Prakash

ARUNA TIWARI,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 90/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Aruna Tiwari 762, Sundar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Adbpt4977B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

68,160/- on 31.03.2015. But on perusal of the bank statement kept on record i.e. SBI and Jila Sahkari Bank Ltd. no such transaction are being reflected in these accounts. On perusal of balance sheet, it is found that the assessee has maintained four accounts during the year. But the statement of bank account maintained at SBI (KCC) and Vijaya

THE CHHATTISGARH STATE POWER GENERATION COMPANY LIMITED, RAIPUR,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(2),RAIPUR, RAIPUR (CG)

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.16/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. O/O. Executive Director-Finance Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.24/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

50,20,023/- as against returned income of Rs. Nil and raising demand of Rs.1,39,66,64,313/- in spite of AO's specific relevant observation in assessment order that "no addition is made and sum payable is determined as per return" as assessee company had paid due income-tax of Rs.45,76,20,500/-, surcharge of Rs.5

CHHATTISGARH STATE POWER GENERATION CO. LTD.,RAIPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.16/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. O/O. Executive Director-Finance Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.24/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

50,20,023/- as against returned income of Rs. Nil and raising demand of Rs.1,39,66,64,313/- in spite of AO's specific relevant observation in assessment order that "no addition is made and sum payable is determined as per return" as assessee company had paid due income-tax of Rs.45,76,20,500/-, surcharge of Rs.5

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. S.P. BUILDCON PVT. LTD., RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 35 & 38/Rpr/2023) (Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V S.P. Buildcon Private Limited Circle-1(1), S Ff-06, Shyam Plaza, Pandri Bus Stand, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Raipur Pan: Aajcs0653H (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) . (""यथ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Amit M. Jain, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 05-09-2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2023

68,50,770/-(as on 23/05/2013) respectively. Various transactions on regular intervals took place during the financial year 2013-14 in the form of advances to its director and repayment thereof. In this connection it is submitted in writing that "Old balance of loan account of Shri Sanjay Raheja as on 01/04/2013 was Rs.67.12/- Lacs. There was no opening distributable

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. S.P. BUILDCON PVT. LTD., RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 35 & 38/Rpr/2023) (Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V S.P. Buildcon Private Limited Circle-1(1), S Ff-06, Shyam Plaza, Pandri Bus Stand, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Raipur Pan: Aajcs0653H (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) . (""यथ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Amit M. Jain, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 05-09-2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2023

68,50,770/-(as on 23/05/2013) respectively. Various transactions on regular intervals took place during the financial year 2013-14 in the form of advances to its director and repayment thereof. In this connection it is submitted in writing that "Old balance of loan account of Shri Sanjay Raheja as on 01/04/2013 was Rs.67.12/- Lacs. There was no opening distributable

NAYA RAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), RAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaiआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 174 & 63/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year(S) : 2012-13 & 2013-14 Naya Raipur Development Authority Prayavas Bhawan, North Block, Sector 19, Naya Raipur Marg, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar(C.G.) Pin-492 002. Pan : Aaalc0225H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption) Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : S/Shri S.R Rao & Rajesh Kumar Chawda, Ar’S. Revenue By : Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 09.06.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022

68 of the Act, the functions of NRDA was to prepare the development plan for the special area and implement the same after its approval by the State Government. It was submitted by the assessee that in order to facilitate the implementation of the aforesaid plan it would acquire, hold, develop, manage and dispose off lands and other properties. Rebutting

NAYA RAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), RAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaiआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 174 & 63/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year(S) : 2012-13 & 2013-14 Naya Raipur Development Authority Prayavas Bhawan, North Block, Sector 19, Naya Raipur Marg, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar(C.G.) Pin-492 002. Pan : Aaalc0225H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption) Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : S/Shri S.R Rao & Rajesh Kumar Chawda, Ar’S. Revenue By : Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 09.06.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022

68 of the Act, the functions of NRDA was to prepare the development plan for the special area and implement the same after its approval by the State Government. It was submitted by the assessee that in order to facilitate the implementation of the aforesaid plan it would acquire, hold, develop, manage and dispose off lands and other properties. Rebutting

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 68 of the Act stood discharged by the Assessee.” 8. It was also submission of the ld. AR that as per the Instruction No. 3/2017 of CBDT regarding SOP for verification of cash transactions relating to demoralization. It was the instruction to department that if the amount deposited by the assessee is less than 2,50

SHRI ASHIT KUMAR DEY,JAGDALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAGDALPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood () & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai (Accountantmember) I.T.A. No. 119/Rpr/2018 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Ashit Kumar Dey The Income Tax Officer Uttam Kumar Dey, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Fish Market, Sanjay Behind Khankar Market,Jagdalpur, Talkies,Civil Lines, Bastar - 494 001 Jagdalpur(C.G.) Pan No. Ajxpd4157D (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri S. R. Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Shri G. N. Singh, D.R Date Of Hearing : 07/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09/06/2022

2) of the Act. 3. During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was observed by the AO that cash amounting to Rs. 86,74,500/- was over the year deposited in the saving bank A/c No. 11566963331 of the assessee held with State Bank of India, Branch: Bastar. As the assessee on being confronted failed to come forth with

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BHILAI vs. MESERS STEELCO ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED, BHILAI

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.88/Rpr/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

Section 23 68 of the Act which are applicable for the relevant A.Y.2014-15. We, therefore, set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the issue to the file of the A.O for adjudicating the same afresh. Needless to say, the AO shall grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in the set-aside proceedings. Thus

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)

68 of the Act and added the amount received from the lender as unexplained credits in respective assessment years. 16.2 The AO also invoked the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act in the alternative and observed that such unsecured loan should be treated as deemed dividend in the hands of the recipient assessee. To support such

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)

68 of the Act and added the amount received from the lender as unexplained credits in respective assessment years. 16.2 The AO also invoked the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act in the alternative and observed that such unsecured loan should be treated as deemed dividend in the hands of the recipient assessee. To support such

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)

68 of the Act and added the amount received from the lender as unexplained credits in respective assessment years. 16.2 The AO also invoked the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act in the alternative and observed that such unsecured loan should be treated as deemed dividend in the hands of the recipient assessee. To support such

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)

68 of the Act and added the amount received from the lender as unexplained credits in respective assessment years. 16.2 The AO also invoked the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act in the alternative and observed that such unsecured loan should be treated as deemed dividend in the hands of the recipient assessee. To support such

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)

68 of the Act and added the amount received from the lender as unexplained credits in respective assessment years. 16.2 The AO also invoked the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act in the alternative and observed that such unsecured loan should be treated as deemed dividend in the hands of the recipient assessee. To support such

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)

68 of the Act and added the amount received from the lender as unexplained credits in respective assessment years. 16.2 The AO also invoked the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act in the alternative and observed that such unsecured loan should be treated as deemed dividend in the hands of the recipient assessee. To support such