ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -I, RAIPUR vs. LORD BUDDHA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.188 To 193/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013 To 2017-2018) Acit, Central Circle-1, Raipur(Cg) Vs M/S Lord Buddha Educational Society, M/S Raipur Institute Of Medical Sciences (Rims), Gram Godhi, Bhansoj Road, Office Nh-6, Raipur (Cg) Pan No. :Aaaal 3913 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

68,47,635/- out of the total addition of 3,59,80,960/- made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of DVO report.” 6. Brief Facts:- All these appeals have arisen out of common order of the LD CIT(A)-3, Bhopal on a common assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the IT Act., the brief

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -I, RAIPUR vs. LORD BUDDHA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.188 To 193/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013 To 2017-2018) Acit, Central Circle-1, Raipur(Cg) Vs M/S Lord Buddha Educational Society, M/S Raipur Institute Of Medical Sciences (Rims), Gram Godhi, Bhansoj Road, Office Nh-6, Raipur (Cg) Pan No. :Aaaal 3913 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

68,47,635/- out of the total addition of 3,59,80,960/- made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of DVO report.” 6. Brief Facts:- All these appeals have arisen out of common order of the LD CIT(A)-3, Bhopal on a common assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the IT Act., the brief

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -I, RAIPUR vs. LORD BUDDHA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.188 To 193/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013 To 2017-2018) Acit, Central Circle-1, Raipur(Cg) Vs M/S Lord Buddha Educational Society, M/S Raipur Institute Of Medical Sciences (Rims), Gram Godhi, Bhansoj Road, Office Nh-6, Raipur (Cg) Pan No. :Aaaal 3913 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

68,47,635/- out of the total addition of 3,59,80,960/- made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of DVO report.” 6. Brief Facts:- All these appeals have arisen out of common order of the LD CIT(A)-3, Bhopal on a common assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the IT Act., the brief

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -I, RAIPUR vs. LORD BUDDHA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.188 To 193/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013 To 2017-2018) Acit, Central Circle-1, Raipur(Cg) Vs M/S Lord Buddha Educational Society, M/S Raipur Institute Of Medical Sciences (Rims), Gram Godhi, Bhansoj Road, Office Nh-6, Raipur (Cg) Pan No. :Aaaal 3913 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

68,47,635/- out of the total addition of 3,59,80,960/- made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of DVO report.” 6. Brief Facts:- All these appeals have arisen out of common order of the LD CIT(A)-3, Bhopal on a common assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the IT Act., the brief

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)

section, 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D for any previous year, the assessee shall pay by way of penalty

RAJA MOHLE, KAWARDHA,KAWARDHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(3), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as per aforesaid terms

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.821/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Raja Mohle Chote Ragra, Indauri, Kawardha-491 336 (C.G.) Pan: Bvrpm0901R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(3), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

Sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C, and 69D, which typically includes unexplained cash credits, investments expenditures, etc. and the Taxation

DY. C.I.T.2(1), RAIPUR (CG) vs. SHRI TARAL MODI, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit- 2(1), Abhishek Atlani, Raipur (Cg). Atlani Bunglow, Khamardih Road, Vs. Shankar Nagar, Raipur (Cg).

section 69B of Income Tax Act, 1961. According to him, the compensation received represents the investments which are not recorded in the accounts of hence by virtue of the deeming provisions, the addition of Rs.2,61,50,496/- was made by the Assessing Officer to the income of the assessee. 7. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee made

DY. C.I.T.2(1), RAIPUR (CG) vs. ABHISHEK ATLANI, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit- 2(1), Abhishek Atlani, Raipur (Cg). Atlani Bunglow, Khamardih Road, Vs. Shankar Nagar, Raipur (Cg).

section 69B of Income Tax Act, 1961. According to him, the compensation received represents the investments which are not recorded in the accounts of hence by virtue of the deeming provisions, the addition of Rs.2,61,50,496/- was made by the Assessing Officer to the income of the assessee. 7. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee made

DY. C.I.T.2(1), RAIPUR (CG) vs. SHRI SURESH ATLANI, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit- 2(1), Abhishek Atlani, Raipur (Cg). Atlani Bunglow, Khamardih Road, Vs. Shankar Nagar, Raipur (Cg).

section 69B of Income Tax Act, 1961. According to him, the compensation received represents the investments which are not recorded in the accounts of hence by virtue of the deeming provisions, the addition of Rs.2,61,50,496/- was made by the Assessing Officer to the income of the assessee. 7. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee made

INCOME TAX OFFICER-2, RAIGARH vs. SHRI VINOD KUMAR JAIN, JASHPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.96/Rpr/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Ito-2, Raigargh Vs Shri Vinod Kumar Jain, College Road, Dist : Jashpur Pan No. : Agepj 9793 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.B.Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Debashish Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02/08/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31 /10 /2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-1, Bilaspur, Dated 06.03.2018, On The Following Ground :- 1. Whether In The Facts & Circumstance & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 6,43,00,000/- Made By The Ao U/S 68 Of The Act? 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & On The Points Of The Law Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 6,43,00,000/- Made By The Ao By Ignoring The Facts As Brought On Record By The Ao That The Assessee Failed To Prove The Identity Of The Creditor, Genuineness Of The Transaction & Creditworthiness Of The Investor As Per The Parameters Of The Legal Provisions U/S 68 Of The Act? 3. Whether In The Facts & Circumstances & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 6,43,00,000/- Made By The Ao U/S 68 Of The Act By Ignoring The Decisions In The Following Lead Cases:- (I) Mcdowell & Company Ltd Vs Commercial Tax Officer (1985) 22 Taxman 11 (Sc). (Ii) M/S Raj Mandir Estates Pvt Ltd Vs Pcit-Iii, Kolkata (Slp No. 22566-22567) Dated 09.01.2017. (Iii) Cit Vs Precision Finance Pvt Ltd., 208 Itr 465(Cal).

68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits - Where in books of account produced by creditors corresponding 10 entries of alleged cash credits were found, books of account itself would indicate capacity of party to advance loan, there was no further need on part of assessee to prove capacity of creditors [In favour of assessee