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 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 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

JCIT, (OSD), CIRCLE 1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. PLATINUM WORLD HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the appellant is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.130/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd), Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

68. 5.2 Identity of the Investor The identity of M/s Aravali Highrise Pvt. Ltd. stands clearly established since the entity is a duly incorporated company under the Companies Act, holds a valid PAN, files regular income-tax returns, and has furnished copies of its Certificate of Incorporation, Memorandum and Articles of Association, audited financial statements and bank statements

RAHUL BAJPAI,IDGAH CHOWK vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), SHRI RAM PLAZA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.345/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rahul Bajpai Idgah Chowk, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh-495 001 Pan: Aexpb4410L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act which, thus, had resulted to a substantial addition in the hands of the assessee. 13 Rahul Bajpai Vs. DCIT Circle-1(1), Bilaspur 14. Apropos the observation of the A.O that as the assessee had failed to place on record supporting documentary evidence which would substantiate that the lands sold

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)

56(2)(viib) in respect of shares issued. 6. To verify the applicability of section 43CA in respect of sale deed executed below stamp duty value. 7. To verify the applicability of section 40A(3) in respect of payment for purchase of land. 6. Aggrieved by the impugned revisional order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal

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

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

section 68 of the IT Act. Thus we do not perceive any reason to interfere with the observation of the Ld CIT(A) qua the impugned 18 allegation of the revenue and thus upheld the order of the CIT and reject this ground of revenue. 20. Apropos, the second issue with respect to disallowance

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), BILASPUR vs. MUSADDILAL MANSARAM INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. , BILASPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 160/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

56(2)(vii), making the addition arbitrary, illegal, and unjustified. It is prayed that the addition of Rs. 65,08,900 be deleted. 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,70,04,658/- made under section 68

MUSADDILAL MANSARAM INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 160/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

56(2)(vii), making the addition arbitrary, illegal, and unjustified. It is prayed that the addition of Rs. 65,08,900 be deleted. 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,70,04,658/- made under section 68

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)

56,61,943/- as consumption of stores and spares and Rs.2,78,142/- as Repair and Maintenance. This disallowance has been made for the reason that some of the vouchers are cash vouchers and are self-drawn and vouchers are not properly maintained. The appellant is contending that the AO have not pointed out any specific defect

SARITA KONDA,BHILAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 62/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sarita Konda Street No.09, Kohka Road, Shanti Nagar, Bhilai (C.G.) Pan : Aukps1814J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1 (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as the income

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR vs. M/S OMAX MINERALS PVT. LTD. GADUMARIA, RAIGARH

In the result appeal ITA No

section 56(viib) has been introduced." Thus, creation of shell companies and subscribing for shares at high premium constitutes tax evasion by money laundering. It is a case of clear human ingenuinity with the clear and contumacious intention to defraud the revenue. ii) Mcdowell & Co Ltd Vs CTO (1985) 22 Taxmann 11(SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court

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

CHHATTISGARH METALIKS AND ALLOYS PVT. LTD.,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -3(3), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.114/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Chhattisgarh Metaliks & Alloys Private Limited Mohini B-5, Merlin Jayashree Vihar, Mandi Gate, Pandri Tarai, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aadcc9242J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(3), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

section 68 of the Act, stands duly discharged. Accordingly, not being able to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the view taken by the lower authorities who had dubbed the share application money of Rs.34.49 lac received by the assessee company as an unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act, we herein set- aside the order of the CIT(Appeals

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)

section 68 of the Act is applicable from 01.04.2013 i.e. A.Y. 2013-14 and therefore not applicable to the subject assessment year as held by the Co-ordinate Bench of Mumbai in the case of Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. in ITA 5784/Mum/2011 which was subsequently confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay

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

THE GRAMIN SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3), RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Gramin Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Vs. Income Tax Officer 1(3), Vill. Mohda Tilda, Aaykar Bhavan, Raipur, Civil Lines, Raipur (Cg). Raipur, Pan: Aaaag9755H Raipur (Cg).

56(c)(i) – (cci), (ccii), (ccvii) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. He drew the attention of the Bench to provisions of Section 2(d) of the NABARD Act, 1981 which defines Central Cooperative Bank and which read as under:- “central co-operative bank means the principal co-operative society in a district in a State, the primary object

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)

68 of PB. Declared total income of Rs. 10,56,630/- &  exempt income of Rs. 5,06,867/- on ale of capital gain & dividend.  Audit report of lender at PN 35 to 62 of PB. v) Credit worthiness of lender 10 Bharat Benefication & Power Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal  It is an NBFC, Note