SANDEEP SINGH,JUNA LAKHANPUR vs. ITO AMBIKAPUR, AMBIKAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.448/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sandeep Singh Juna Lakhanpur, Lakhanpur, Surguja-497 116 (C.G.) Ambikapur Pan: Gesps5929Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ambikapur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

68 of the Act and not whether such an addition can be made under Section 69-A of the Act. In view

SEEMA DEVI AGRAWAL,RAIGARH, CHHATTISGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BILASPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Seema Devi Agrawal C/O. Sunil Kumar Agrawal Sewa Kund Road, Raigarh-496 001 (C.G.) Pan: Affpa4990K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

68 of the Act and not whether such an addition can be made under Section 69-A of the Act. In view

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

68 of the Act and not whether such an addition can be made under Section 69-A of the Act. In view

ADARSH NURSING INSTITUTE PVT LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO-4(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.534/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Adarsh Nursing Institute Private Limited Behind Sejbahar, Housing Board Colony, Near Kushabhau Thakre Univeristy, Datrenga, Raipur (C.G.)-492 013 Pan: Aagca6544C

68 of the Act and not whether such an addition can be made under Section 69-A of the Act. In view

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), BILASPUR vs. M/S JAYEM HOLDING PVT. LTD., BILASPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the department in ITA no

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

68 of the I.T. Act. Aggrieved by the said assessment order passed u/s 143(3) dated 25.03.2015, Third Eye Vinimay has preferred an appeal before the Ld. Jurisdictional CIT(A), however while the appeal with the 1st appellate authority was pending, the total demand raised by the Assessing Officer for Rs. 5,63,69

ANSHUKA TANEJA,AASTHA APARTMENT, SHANKAR NAGAR, RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, CIVIL LINES, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 391/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Anshuka Taneja E-7, E-Block, Aastha Apartment, Shankar Nagar, Opposite Wallfort Orchid, Sector-2, Raipur (C.G.)-492 004 Pan: Adupt5936D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

68 of the Act and not whether such an addition can be made under Section 69-A of the Act. In view

DAYARAM AGRAWAL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.258/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Dayaram Agrawal H-1, Shankar Nagar, Rajeev Nagar, Raipur-492 007 (C.G.) Pan: Acgpa8622C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

68 of the Act and not whether such an addition can be made under Section 69-A of the Act. In view

DURGAWATI PANDAY,BAIKUNTHPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD NO 01, AMBIKAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.14/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2020-21 Durgawati Panday Ward No.9, Mahalpara, Baikunthpur, Koriya Chhattisgarh-497 335 Pan: Dsipp8404G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Ambikapur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

68 of the Act and not whether such an addition can be made under Section 69-A of the Act. 6 Durgawati

SIKHA AGRAWAL, RAIGARH,RAIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RAIGARH, RAIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.235/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shikha Agrawal A-9, Ashirbadpuram Colony, Near Dhimrapur Chowk, Raigarh (C.G.)-496 554 Pan: Cjwpa0265J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Raigarh (C.G) ……""यथ" / Respondent

68 of the Act and not whether such an addition can be made under Section 69-A of the Act. In view

RAGHVENDRA SINGH THAKUR, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.242/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Raghvendra Singh Thakur, H.No.238, Sarona, Tatibandh, Raipur, 492001, Chhattisgarh Pan: Akbpt7616E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

68 of the Act and not whether such an addition can be made under Section 69-A of the Act. In view

PRIYESH SINGHANIA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.462/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Priyesh Singhania 730/1, Radha Kunj, Opposite Vip Guest House, Pahuna, Shankar Nagar Main Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aoups7838A ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

68 of the Act and not whether such an addition can be made under Section 69-A of the Act. In view

SAROJ, KOREA,KOREA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR - 1, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.379/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Saroj W/O. Ashok Kumar Jaiswal Pondi Bachra, Korea-497 449 (C.G.) Pan: Etzps9075K

68 of the Act and not whether such an addition can be made under Section 69-A of the Act. In view

MITESH SINGHANIA,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2) RAIPUR, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.410/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Mitesh Singhania Singhania Bhawan, Subhas Road, Near Telghani Naka, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Avops1474P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur (C.G) ……""यथ" / Respondent

68 of the Act and not whether such an addition can be made under Section 69-A of the Act. In view

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

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)

68, 69C and section 69 of the Act. 14. Being aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), wherein

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)

68, 69C and section 69 of the Act. 14. Being aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), wherein

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

Section 68 of the Act, wherein in absence of “1st proviso” to Sec. 68 of the Act that had been made available on the statute vide the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f 01.04.2013, no obligation was earlier cast upon the person, in whose name credit consisting of share application money, share capital, share premium or any such amount by whatever

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)

69,19,324/- Add: as discussed above Disallowance u/s 68 11,54,65,000/- Disallowance out of 1,59,401/- consumption 11,56,24,401/- of store & spares and repair & maintenance Total Income Rs.14,25,43,725/- 8 DCIT vs Balajee Loha Pvt. Ltd., Raipur Less: Allowable Depreciation Rs.3,14,33,840/- Rs.3,14,33,840/- Total Assessed Income Rs.11