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 Income Tax Act. 1961. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete all or any of the grounds of appeal.” 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee company, which is registered as a Non- Banking Financial Corporation (NBFC) and is primarily engaged in the business of providing unsecured loans/advances and trading in shares

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)

section 68 of the Act from AY 2013- AO during assessment proceeding by treating as 14 foisting such obligation. A unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act. (Para-3.8 of reference may be made to the SOF) decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. 80

GODAWARI POWER AND ISPAT LTD.,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NATIONAL INFORMATICS CENTER, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

80-IA of the Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble DRP/ learned AO erred in determining the price for transfer of power between eligible units and non-eligible units as assessee has not claimed any deduction under section 80IA of the Act and thus, provisions of specified

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR (CG) vs. M/S VANDANA VIDYUT LIMITED,, RAIPUR (CG)

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.138/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Vandana Vidyut Limited Vandana Building, M.G Road, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaacv7850L ……""यथ" / Respondent

80,433/- made u/s 14A of the I T Act r.w.s 8D of the I T Rules made by the AO?". 2."Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made u/s 14A, when clause (3) of the Section 14A of the Act clearly prescribes

PRAKASH KUMAR KSHATRIYA,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RAJNANDGAON, RAJNANDGOAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.436/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Prakash Kumar Kshatriya House No.9, Ward No.44, Kaurin Bhata, Shiv Colony, Rajnandgaon-491 441 (C.G.) Pan: Cdhpk3190B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

80,000/- has been received as compensation from insurance company and Rs.5,10,000/- received from M/s. Rajaram Maize Products after the death of his father totaling 4 Prakash Kumar Kshatriya Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Rajnandgaon Rs.10,90,000/- which was kept by his mother and she had given the said amount to him for purchase of the land

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.

80,100/- during the F.Y.2014-15 relevant to A.Y.2015-16. Thereafter, the A.O writes that “the capital gain arising out of sale from the properties has not been disclosed………”. Therefore, on one hand, the A.O initiated reassessment proceedings on the basis of the fact that the assessee had made investment in purchase of immovable property, whereas, in concluding the “reasons to believe

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

TOUCHSTONE SERVICE PVT. LTD.,RAJNANDGAON vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.69/Rpr/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Touchstone Service Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mangal Deep, G.E. Road, Raipur-1. Rajnandgaon (C.G.)-491 441 Pan: Aacct6932F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.B Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Debashis Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 04/09/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

80,050/-. 4. Subsequently the case of the assessee was picked up by the Pr. CIT by issuing notice u/s. 263 of the Act. For revisionary proceedings under the notice issued u/s. 263 of the Act, Pr. CIT recorded the reasons that the assessee had received unsecured loan from Gangotri Tracon P. Ltd., Kolkata during the year under consideration

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)

80,000/- 12,65,000/- 7,65,000/- The above-mentioned facts are evident from the copy of confirmation of account along with ITR. relevant extract of bank statements of M/s Hanuman Loha (P) Ltd. and M/s Balajee Steels enclosed in our previous submission dated 06.05.2023. Copy of all tl1e 16 DCIT vs Balajee Loha Pvt. Ltd., Raipur said documents

GOPAL SPONGE & POWER PVT. LTD,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed, in terms of our observations here in above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 226/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Gopal Sponge & Power Pvt. Ltd., Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Village- Siltara, Near Industrial Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur, (C.G.) Growth Centre, Phase- 2, Raipur, (C.G.) Pan: Aaccg1525F (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B. Subramanyam, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.K. Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02-08-2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17-10- 2023

section 80 AC of IT Act, 1961. Therefore, deduction claimed by assessee amounting to Rs. 8,68,43,623/- is irregular

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 1(1), RAIPUR vs. M/S R.R. INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 144/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. R.R. Industrial Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd., Station Road, Telghani Naka, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaecr4291B ……""यथ" / Respondent

section 68 are uncalled for and hence, deleted. In fine, after necessary documents were filed in respect of the subscriber company to establish the genuineness of capital and creditworthiness of subscriber and since there is nothing on record to reject the genuineness of capital the same has be accepted. In view of the above and respectfully following the ratio

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

68,877/- after making the following additions: Sr. No. Particulars Amount 1. Addition u/s. 69A of the Act on Rs.1,19,30,000/- account of unsecured loan 2. Addition u/s. 69A of the Act on Rs.1,50,50,000/- (out accounted of unexplained cash of total addition of deposits Rs.1,55,50,000/-) 3. Addition

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

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) ..

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 Yes, PN 51 of Yes, PN 53 of PB. Bharat Kumar

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. SHREE KUMAR SINGH BHADORIYA, DANTEWADA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.154/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

68 of the Act is deleted and Grounds No.1 to 8 are ALLOWED. 7.0 In the result, the appeal filed against the order u/s. 143(3) of the Act for the AY 2017-18 is ALLOWED.” 7 DCIT-1(1), Raipur Vs. Shree Kumar Singh Bhadoriya 6. We observe that as evident from Para 6.2.6 of the order

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

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)

80,000/- and transfer amount of Rs. 85,259/- on 05.01.2015, and 20.01.2015 respectively. The bank account shows no other significant transactions. Further returned income is only Rs. 2,68, 300/- and as per balance sheet he has made investment of Rs. 14,29,800/- in this company only arid he has no other asset. TOTAL 6711010 From the records