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) ..

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)), BHILAI vs. SHRI SANJAY JAIN, BHILAI

In the result ground no. 06 of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: Ita 55/Rpr/2020 (Assessment Years:2014-15) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, V Shri Sanjay Jain, Bhilai S C/O M/S Sidhharth Industries, Plot No. 38, Industrial Estate, Bhilai, C.G. Pan: Aet Pj1859D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) . (""यथ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ravi Agarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 23-08-2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 09-11-2023 Pronouncement

section 68. We thus, are of the opinion that ground no. 3 of the revenue should also be re-adjudicated afresh a/w the issue 14 Sanjay Jain regarding additions u/s 68, accordingly the same is directed to restore back to the files of Ld. CIT(A). In the result ground no. 3 of the appeal is partly allowed

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

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

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

M/S LNS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,DURG(CG) vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Ram Lal Negi)

section 68 of the Act is applicable from 01.04.2013 i.e. A.Y. 2013-14 and therefore not applicable to the subject assessment year as held by the Co-ordinate Bench of Mumbai in the case of Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. in ITA 5784/Mum/2011 which was subsequently confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay

VICKY SHERWANI,RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.437/Rpr/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vicky Sherwani, A-6, Rajeev Nagar, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001 Pan: Bglps5239M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

81,900/- u/s 68 read with section 115BBE of Income Tax Act 1961. 2. The appellant reserves the right

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER -1, RAIGARH, RAIGARH(CG) vs. SHRI SHRI PARMANAND GUPTA, RAIGARH, RAIGARH(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 82/Rpr/2017 Co. No. 02/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 The Income Tax Officer-1, Raigarh (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Parmanand Gupta, Alochan Agrawal, L/H. Of Late Shri Parmanand Gupta, Prop. M/S. Balaji Handloom, 19/48, Palace Road, Raigarh (C.G.) Pan : Afdpg4961L ……""यथ" / Respondent

81,663/- made by the A.O under Sec. 68 of the Act. 5. The Revenue being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 6. Before us, the Ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘AR’) for the assessee assailed the validity of the jurisdiction that 8 ITO-1 Vs. Shri Parmanand Gupta

M/S. RUKMANI ENGINEERING WORKS, (NOW RUKMANI INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,,ODISHA vs. THE DY. CIT- CIRCLE- KORBA,, KORBA(CG)

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee firm being devoid and bereft of any merit is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.81/Rpr/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Rukmani Engineering Works (Now Rukmani Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.) Mig-384, Svbp Nagar, Jamnipali, Korba (C.G.) Pan: Aaifr4667G

81 (Born. HC)]. Section 2(12A) defines the said term as including ledgers, day-books, cash books, account books and other books whether kept in the written form or as print-outs of data stored in a floppy, disc, tape or any other form of electromagnetic data storage device. The provision of section 68

DCIT-1(1), BHILAI vs. VIJAYA DESHLAHRA, INDORE

In the result, ITA No. 92/RPR/2025 & C

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpia

81,60,782/- has escaped assessment for the AY 2013-14 within the meaning of Explanation 2(b) of section 147 of the IT Act, 1961. Further any such other income which comes to the notice subsequently in the course of assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act will also be looked into. 7. Applicability of the provisions

DCIT-1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI vs. VIJAYA DESHLAHRA, INDORE

In the result, ITA No. 92/RPR/2025 & C

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpia

81,60,782/- has escaped assessment for the AY 2013-14 within the meaning of Explanation 2(b) of section 147 of the IT Act, 1961. Further any such other income which comes to the notice subsequently in the course of assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act will also be looked into. 7. Applicability of the provisions

DCIT-1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI vs. VIJAYA DESHLAHRA, INDORE

In the result, ITA No. 92/RPR/2025 & C

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpia

81,60,782/- has escaped assessment for the AY 2013-14 within the meaning of Explanation 2(b) of section 147 of the IT Act, 1961. Further any such other income which comes to the notice subsequently in the course of assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act will also be looked into. 7. Applicability of the provisions

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1),, RAIPUR vs. SHRI. JAVED ALI PRADHAN,, RAIPUR

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member

81 ITD 85 (Mum.) (TM.) there was no evidence for extra cash, jeweller)' or investment outside the books of account, found during search or thereafter, and hence it was held that explanation offered by the appellant could not be rejected as no addition could be made merely on the basis of suspicion without any corroborating evidence. It is settled position

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1),, RAIPUR vs. SHRI. JAVED ALI PRADHAN,, RAIPUR

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member

81 ITD 85 (Mum.) (TM.) there was no evidence for extra cash, jeweller)' or investment outside the books of account, found during search or thereafter, and hence it was held that explanation offered by the appellant could not be rejected as no addition could be made merely on the basis of suspicion without any corroborating evidence. It is settled position

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1),, RAIPUR vs. SHRI. JAVED ALI PRADHAN,, RAIPUR

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member

81 ITD 85 (Mum.) (TM.) there was no evidence for extra cash, jeweller)' or investment outside the books of account, found during search or thereafter, and hence it was held that explanation offered by the appellant could not be rejected as no addition could be made merely on the basis of suspicion without any corroborating evidence. It is settled position

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1),, RAIPUR vs. SHRI. JAVED ALI PRADHAN,, RAIPUR

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member

81 ITD 85 (Mum.) (TM.) there was no evidence for extra cash, jeweller)' or investment outside the books of account, found during search or thereafter, and hence it was held that explanation offered by the appellant could not be rejected as no addition could be made merely on the basis of suspicion without any corroborating evidence. It is settled position

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1),, RAIPUR vs. SHRI. JAVED ALI PRADHAN,, RAIPUR

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member

81 ITD 85 (Mum.) (TM.) there was no evidence for extra cash, jeweller)' or investment outside the books of account, found during search or thereafter, and hence it was held that explanation offered by the appellant could not be rejected as no addition could be made merely on the basis of suspicion without any corroborating evidence. It is settled position

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1),, RAIPUR vs. SHRI. JAVED ALI PRADHAN,, RAIPUR

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member

81 ITD 85 (Mum.) (TM.) there was no evidence for extra cash, jeweller)' or investment outside the books of account, found during search or thereafter, and hence it was held that explanation offered by the appellant could not be rejected as no addition could be made merely on the basis of suspicion without any corroborating evidence. It is settled position

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)

81,541/- (Page no. 64 of PB) included in the computation. Result of land dealing included in the return also. iv) Even going by observation of Id. Pr. CIT, there would be business loss which would be adjusted against capital gain income u/s 71(2) and the total income in both the cases would be same. v) Prejudice not proved