INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), RAIPUR vs. MESERS ARYAN BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR

In the result, both appeal of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee stand dismissed in terms of our observations

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

78 (SC). ii) Pr. CIT vs Laxman Industrial Resources Ltd. (2017) 397 ITR 106 (Del.). Prabhatam Investment (P) Ltd. vs ACIT (2017) 49 CCH 299 iii) (Del. Trib.). 5. Onus u/s 68 discharged. The burden never shifted back by the AO to the assessee as the outcome of enquiry was never confronted to the assessee and no positive material

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.)

78) held that where the appellant provides complete details and the Assessing Officer fails to pursue further enquiry, the addition under section 68

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 are uncalled for and hence, deleted. 18. We also find force in the contentions of the assessee, subscribed by the findings of the Hon’ble Apex Court and Jurisdictional High Court in the following cases, where in the issue under reference is duly interpreted. It would be relevant to produce the findings in the said decisions

MESERS DHARIWAL BROTHERS,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.186/Rpr/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14) बनाम/ M/S. Dhariwal Brothers, Income Tax Officer- C/O. Raymond Retail Shop, Ward (3)(1), Raipur Vs. Jeewan Bima Marg, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfd 6404 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) ..

78 (SC) for the proposition that where the notice remained unserved, but, however, the Assessing Officer has not made any further efforts to make enquiry, an adverse inference cannot be derived automatically. It was contended that the case of assessee is on a much higher pedestal having regard to the fact that notice under Section 133 (6) was served

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)

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 in any of bills and vouchers and has disallowed the expenses on general observation

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 I.T. Act, 1961. 5.2. The appellant has submitted that it is the result of transfer entry made by appellant, transferring credit balances appearing in the account of creditors in the books of business concerns, to the capital account of appellant. These transfers have been made in two years: - AY 2011-12 Rs.1

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

78,000/-. It is the same amount that has been paid by the assessee. It is not the case of the department that apart from total sale consideration paid, there is also some on money which was paid and not disclosed by the assessee. It is also not the case of the department that the credibility of husband

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

68 of the Act. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of id. CIT(A)." 5. CIT V/s P. Mohankala, (2007) 291ITR 278 SC "The expression "the assessee offers no explanation" means the assessee offers no proper, reasonable and acceptable explanation as regards the sums found credited in the books maintained by the assessee

SHRI SHRI NITESHKUMAR GOYAL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4),RAIPUR, RAIPUR (CG)

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 36/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Nitesh Kumar Goyal Prop. Com Con India Net Work Solution Shop No.327 Lal Ganga, Shopping Mall, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aigpg6386B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Ward-4(4), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prafulla Pandse, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :15.03.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.03.2022

68 of Act. The impugned amount were unsecured loans taken from M/s. Seema R Mutreja for an amount, of Rs. 2,50,000/- and from Anil Dengwani for Rs.18,20,000/- aggregating Rs. 20,70,000/-. During the assessment proceedings the AO called for various documents in order to establish the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the lenders

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

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) ..

78 (SC) CIT vs Jai Kumar Bakliwal (2014) 366 ITR 217, 223 & 224 (Raj.) When the assessee discharges initial burden u/s 68, the onus shifts to the AO. If AO assesses the said loan as income of the assessee from undisclosed source, he has to prove either by direct or indirect/circumstantial evidence that the money which the assessee 4 received

MESERS FASHION HOUSE,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 4(3), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 217/Rpr/2018 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Fashion House, Malviya Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pin-492 001 Pan : Aacff3323M .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-4(3), Raipur (C.G.) ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri R.B. Doshi Revenue By : Smt. Anubhaa T. Goel

68 was not complied with and he added the entire amount of Rs.58,50,000/- in the hands of the assessee. 5. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) as per details reasons and observations as appearing in his order was of the opinion that it is always the onus of the assessee to establish the identity , creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness

SMT. SEEMA AGRAWAL,RAIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD -I, RAIGARH

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.179/Rpr/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Seema Agrawal, Vs Ito, Ward-1, Raigarh Sewa Kunj Road, Near Girls College, Raigarh (C.G.) Pan No. : Affpa 4990 K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) ..

68 discharged. No enquiry whatsoever by the AC) and the onus never shifted back to the assessee. In view of this, no addition could have been made. Reliance on: - i) CIT vs Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) (PN 103 to 108 of PB). ii) CIT vs Metachem Industries

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 as is mentioned in the ground, ledger copy of amount paid for providing Bank Guarantee on behalf of Refratechnik Steel GmbH, copy of Bank Guarantee along with fixed deposit receipts are placed on Page No. 81 to 99 of the Paper Book, copy of agreement between Refratechnik Steel GmbH and the assessee for Bank Guarantee is placed

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 as is mentioned in the ground, ledger copy of amount paid for providing Bank Guarantee on behalf of Refratechnik Steel GmbH, copy of Bank Guarantee along with fixed deposit receipts are placed on Page No. 81 to 99 of the Paper Book, copy of agreement between Refratechnik Steel GmbH and the assessee for Bank Guarantee is placed

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

78,50,000/- (A.Y. 2009-10) invoking the provisions of Section 68 of the Act in respect of receipt

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

78,50,000/- (A.Y. 2009-10) invoking the provisions of Section 68 of the Act in respect of receipt

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

78,50,000/- (A.Y. 2009-10) invoking the provisions of Section 68 of the Act in respect of receipt