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 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

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)

54,65,000/- u/s 68 on account of unexplained cash credit received by the assessee in the guise of share capital and premium. 5. Per contra, Shri Bikram Jain, Authorized Representative (in short “Ld. AR”) representing the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) had rightly, judiciously and according to settled principle of law have deliberated upon the issue and have

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), RAIPUR vs. MESERS VANDANA ISPAT LIMITED, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

68 of the IT Act ?” 13. Whether on points of law and facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.2,59,00,000/- as the CIT(A) having concurrent powers of the AO u/s 250(4) of the Act, was not justified in deleting the addition made

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 is still pending, therefore, the Ld. PCIT has no authority to invoke provisions of section 263, as his powers are barred by provisions of clause (c) to explanation (1) to section 263(1) of the Act. For the sake of contemplation, the provision referred to has been extracted as under: Section 263(1), explanation

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

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

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) ..

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 Yes, PN 29 of Yes, PN 32 of PB. PN 29 of PB, Capital Godhwani PB. Rs. 18.48 lakh, loan

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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)), BHILAI vs. SHRI SANJAY JAIN, BHILAI

In the result ground no. 06 of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: Ita 55/Rpr/2020 (Assessment Years:2014-15) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, V Shri Sanjay Jain, Bhilai S C/O M/S Sidhharth Industries, Plot No. 38, Industrial Estate, Bhilai, C.G. Pan: Aet Pj1859D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) . (""यथ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ravi Agarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 23-08-2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 09-11-2023 Pronouncement

section 68. We thus, are of the opinion that ground no. 3 of the revenue should also be re-adjudicated afresh a/w the issue 14 Sanjay Jain regarding additions u/s 68, accordingly the same is directed to restore back to the files of Ld. CIT(A). In the result ground no. 3 of the appeal is partly allowed

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,RAIPUR, RAIPUR (CG) vs. M/S DEVI IRON & POWER PVT LTD., RAIPUR, RAIPUR (CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 267 & 268/Rpr/2014 Co Nos. 30 & 31/Rpr/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Devi Iron & Power Pvt. Ltd. Mahamaya Tower, 3Rd & 4Th Floor, In Front Of Anupam Nagar, Near Varun Honda, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaeca3704G ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.101/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-2, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Devi Iron & Power Pvt. Ltd. B-08-09, Sector-C, Industrial Area, Urla, Sarora, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aabcd9753D ……""यथ" / Respondent Co Nos.30 & 31/Rpr/2015

Section 68 of the Act, i.e., prior to insertion of the “1st Proviso” vide the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013, the assessee company for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y.2012-13 remained under no statutory obligation to put forth an explanation as regards the source of source of the share application money received by it during the said year

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. DEVI IRON & POWER PVT LIMITED, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 267 & 268/Rpr/2014 Co Nos. 30 & 31/Rpr/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Devi Iron & Power Pvt. Ltd. Mahamaya Tower, 3Rd & 4Th Floor, In Front Of Anupam Nagar, Near Varun Honda, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaeca3704G ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.101/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-2, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Devi Iron & Power Pvt. Ltd. B-08-09, Sector-C, Industrial Area, Urla, Sarora, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aabcd9753D ……""यथ" / Respondent Co Nos.30 & 31/Rpr/2015

Section 68 of the Act, i.e., prior to insertion of the “1st Proviso” vide the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013, the assessee company for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y.2012-13 remained under no statutory obligation to put forth an explanation as regards the source of source of the share application money received by it during the said year

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. DEVI IRON & POWER LIMITED, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 267 & 268/Rpr/2014 Co Nos. 30 & 31/Rpr/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Devi Iron & Power Pvt. Ltd. Mahamaya Tower, 3Rd & 4Th Floor, In Front Of Anupam Nagar, Near Varun Honda, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaeca3704G ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.101/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-2, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Devi Iron & Power Pvt. Ltd. B-08-09, Sector-C, Industrial Area, Urla, Sarora, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aabcd9753D ……""यथ" / Respondent Co Nos.30 & 31/Rpr/2015

Section 68 of the Act, i.e., prior to insertion of the “1st Proviso” vide the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013, the assessee company for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y.2012-13 remained under no statutory obligation to put forth an explanation as regards the source of source of the share application money received by it during the said year

SHRI SHRI MAHESH KUMAR DUHLANI,KORBA(CG) vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE , KORBA, KORBA(CG)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaiआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 92/Bil/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Mahesh Kumar Duhlani Main Road, P. O. Katoghora, Distt. Korba (C.G) Pan : Aejpd4102K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle Mahanadi Complex, Niharika Road, Korba (Cg) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri G. S. Agrawal Revenue By : Shri G. N. Singh सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 09.06.2022

section 143(2)/142(1) along 4 A.Y.2011-12 with the questionnaire. During the course of proceedings, certain more queries were raised which have also been replied. The AR also produced the books of accounts, bills, vouchers and bank statements in original. These have been checked on random basis with regard to the financial statements filed during proceedings

BHARAT BENEFICATION & POWER PVT. LTD., RAIGARH,RAIGARH vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 336/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

section 263, the short synopsis submitted before us is extracted hereunder for the sake of clarity: Bharat Benefication & Power Pvt. Ltd., Raigarh AY 2018/19 Submission of assessee 1. Rs. 70 lakh Sky Alloys & Power Pvt. Ltd. i) Impugned assessment reopened on the issue of alleged bogus purchases from two parties. ii) In the reopened assessment, as per the settled

M/S. RUKMANI ENGINEERING WORKS, (NOW RUKMANI INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,,ODISHA vs. THE DY. CIT- CIRCLE- KORBA,, KORBA(CG)

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee firm being devoid and bereft of any merit is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.81/Rpr/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Rukmani Engineering Works (Now Rukmani Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.) Mig-384, Svbp Nagar, Jamnipali, Korba (C.G.) Pan: Aaifr4667G

54,197/-; (ii) disallowance of certain expenses which were inadmissible :Rs.4,14,975/-; and (iii) disallowance of the assessee’s claim for deduction of interest on capital and remuneration paid to partners :Rs.24,43,309/-. Accordingly, the CIT(Appeals) after making the aforesaid additions to the returned income of the assessee firm, determined its business income at Rs.97

SHRI SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR AGRAWAL, KORBA,KORBA(CG) vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,RANGE KORBA, KORBA(CG)

In the result, appeal of the assesee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 93 & 94/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Prop. Of M/S. Shrikishan & Co., T.P Nagar, Korba (C.G.) Pan : Acgpa4350B .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

68 of the Act, viz. (i). M/s. MRA Global Pvt. Ltd. : Rs. 60 lac; and (ii). M/s. Maa Samleshwari Steels Pvt. Ltd. : Rs. 30 lac. (B). Loans raised by the assessee from certain individuals : Sr. No. Particulars Amount 1. Smt. Mohini Garg Rs. 8,00,000/- 2. Shri Pawan Garg Rs. 12,00,000/- 3. Smt. Sharda Devi

SHRI SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR AGRAWAL, KORBA,KORBA(CG) vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,RANGE KORBA, KORBA(CG)

In the result, appeal of the assesee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 93 & 94/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Prop. Of M/S. Shrikishan & Co., T.P Nagar, Korba (C.G.) Pan : Acgpa4350B .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

68 of the Act, viz. (i). M/s. MRA Global Pvt. Ltd. : Rs. 60 lac; and (ii). M/s. Maa Samleshwari Steels Pvt. Ltd. : Rs. 30 lac. (B). Loans raised by the assessee from certain individuals : Sr. No. Particulars Amount 1. Smt. Mohini Garg Rs. 8,00,000/- 2. Shri Pawan Garg Rs. 12,00,000/- 3. Smt. Sharda Devi

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) ..

68 and has quoted a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Daulatram Rawat Mull, (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC), where in it has been concluded that: "It is not enough for the assessing officer to brushed aside the explanation offered by the assessee but he should record reasons in writing as to why documents