NISHA NANWANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.352/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Nisha Nanwani Shail Villa, Flat No.502, Block-C, Maruti Life Style, Kota-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Atepn5440L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

65,000/-in the bank account of Bank of Maharashtra during demonetization period from 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016 as per the order of A.O. Thereafter, statutory notices were issued to the assessee by the A.O to explain the nature and source of such cash deposits. The assessee had uploaded her reply on 10.12.2019 a/w. inflow of cash deposited in the bank

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), RAIPUR vs. M/S TRIPCO SERVICES PVT. LTD., , RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in terms of our observations above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.110/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

68 has been amended by Finance Act, 2012 inserting the sub-section 1 that source of source has to be proved in the cases of share application money ? 5. "Whether on the facts of the cases and in law, the CIT(A) is justified in replying on jurisdictional high court order in the case of ACIT Vs Venkateshwar (spat

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

65 of the Chattisgarh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (23 of 1973) for the development of the Special Area constituted under Section 64 of 5 Naya Raipur Development Authority Vs. DCIT (Exemption) ITA No. 174 & 63 /RPR/2019 the said Act. It was therein submitted that as per Section 68

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

65 of the Chattisgarh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (23 of 1973) for the development of the Special Area constituted under Section 64 of 5 Naya Raipur Development Authority Vs. DCIT (Exemption) ITA No. 174 & 63 /RPR/2019 the said Act. It was therein submitted that as per Section 68

ASHOK KUMAR MALOO, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.308/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ashok Kumar Maloo Ground Floor, Halwai Line, Sadar Bazar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Adtpm9149C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

65,360/- Income derived from Retail Jewellery Business Return filed u/s 44AD of Income Tax Act 1961. 2. THAT the assessee is not maintain proper books of account because not required as Income Tax Act 1961 hence could not produce Profit & Loss Account, Balance Sheet for A.Y. 2017-18 6 Ashok Kumar Maloo Vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Raipur

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 68 of the Act? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and on the points of the law Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,25,00,000/- made by the AO relying upon the decision in cases which are distinguishable in facts from the case of the assessee

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

Section 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

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)

65 to 68 of the APB), we find that the issues i.e., (i) the addition u/s 68 to be taxed at special rate u/s 115BBE and (ii) the applicability of section

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) ..

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 of Rs. 14.02 lakh

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) ..

65,67,750/- Unexplained cash credit : 20,00,000/- Disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) : 2,92,028/- Unrecorded contract receipts : 72,435/- Unexplained sundry creditors : 5,49,649/- Interest on late payment of TDS : 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

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)

65,000/- on 05.01.2015 and transfer amount of Rs. 3,92,000/- on 21.01.2015 and 25.02.2015 respectively. The bank account shows no other significant transactions. Further returned income is only Rs. 2,67,300/- and as per balance sheet he has made investment of Rs. 13,68,950/- in this ITA No. 71/RPR/2020 (Shri Shaktidham Infraventure Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2),, RAIPUR vs. SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL, NEORA, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.15/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Rajendra Kumar Agrawal, M/S. Amit Chawal Udyog Neora, Tilda, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Acipa5919L ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By :S/Shri G.S. Agrawal & N.C Gupta, Ar’S Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr

section 69C on the basis of GP ratio is unjustified?" 9. Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the ratio of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT-II vs. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P.) Ltd. reported in [2015] 56 taxmann.com 286(Delhi) held

SUSHIL KUMAR AGRAWAL,KORBA vs. DEPUTY COMMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, KORBA, KORBA

In the result, appeal of 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.148/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Prop. Of M/S. Shrikishan & Co., Darri Road, Korba (C.G.) Pan : Acgpa4350B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

65,920/- (supra) u/s. 68 of the Act. As is discernible from the records, the assessee had in order to substantiate the authenticity of the loan transaction in question, had placed on record supporting documentary evidences, viz. (i) names, addresses and PAN Nos. of the lender; (ii) confirmation of account of the lender; and (iii) copy of the return

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)

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)

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

M/S RADHIKA WATER & AMUSEMENT PARK INDS,,BILASPUR(CG) vs. I.T.O. WARD 1(2), BILASPUR(CG)

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.320/Rpr/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 M/S. Radhika Water & Amusement Park Industries, Dayalband, Bilaspur (C.G.) Pan : Aaifk7321K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Bilaspur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

68, on account of capital introduced by the partner H.K, Sachdeo (HUF). The addition made by the A.O and confirmed by the CIT(A) is illegal and not justified. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.1,25,350/- made by the A.O on account of salary expenses

AARTI SPONGE AND POWER LTD.,RAIPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR - 1, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

65,00,000/- relating to Dhanlaxmi Vyapar P. Ltd. and Milan Tie-up Pvt. Ltd. were accepted/repaid from/to Kolkata based shell companies in the guise of unsecured loans. Since, as per the list published by SEBI on online platform, the companies are shell companies, hence, transactions entered into by the assessee company with such shell companies were treated as unexplained