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 :

85,68,312/- 6.3 It is submitted that the entire amount of Rs.85,68,312/- was utilized by the assessee in its capacity as agent towards purchase of material and contractors payment for lining charges on behalf of Refratechnik Steel GmbH which was supplied to NINL, the ledger account of Refratechnik Steel GmbH in the books of accounts

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 :

85,68,312/- 6.3 It is submitted that the entire amount of Rs.85,68,312/- was utilized by the assessee in its capacity as agent towards purchase of material and contractors payment for lining charges on behalf of Refratechnik Steel GmbH which was supplied to NINL, the ledger account of Refratechnik Steel GmbH in the books of accounts

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 of the Act stood discharged by the Assessee.” Also, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rohini Builders, (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Del.), had held, that it is not for the assessee to prove the genuineness of the cash deposits in the bank accounts of the creditors

M/S ANJANI ASSOCIATES,BILASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), BILASPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S Anjani Associates, Ito, Ward 1(2), Opp. Jain Plaza, Link Road, Bilaspur (Cg). Vs. Bilaspur (Cg).

85,50,000/- which include an amount of Rs.3,48,50,000 from 20 private limited companies and the balance from five individuals. He, therefore, asked the assessee to produce the details of the lender companies viz. name, address 2 and amount received as loan etc. The assessee vide letter dated 07.06.2016 filed the requisite details. In order to prove

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) ..

Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash Credits - Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 12,85,000 as unexplained

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)

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 it is seen that AO has not made proper examination/enquiry with respect to the source of share application money whereas these amount were got transferred from the account

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)

68 of the Act. 3. During the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings and on perusing the balance sheet of the assessee, the A.O noticed that the balance sheet shows share application money at Rs. 18,85,50,572/- pending for allotment of shares. The details of outstanding share application money are as under:- 1 Shri Abhinav Khasgiwala

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-1), RAIPUR vs. SHRI GURPREET SINGH BHATIA, RAJNANDGAON

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue in IT(SS)A 01/RPR/2022, stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./It(Ss)A 01/Rpr/2022 Cross Objection No. 02/Rpr/2023 (Arising Out Of It(Ss)A No. 01/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Years:2018-19) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax V M/S Merigold Impex, (Central Circle-I), S 35/75, Punjabi Colony, Katora Talab, Raipur, (C.G.) Raipur, (C.G.) Pan: Aasfm6747N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita 17/Rpr/2022 Cross Objection No. 03/Rpr/2023 (Arising Out Of Ita 17/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Years:2018-19) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax V Shri Gurpreet Singh Bhatia, (Central Circle-I), S 1/2/1, Old Bus Stand Road, Raipur, (C.G.) Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) Pan: Aaspb5363R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Praveen Jain, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By : Shri Debashish Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 07-09-2023 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27-10-2023

section 68 of the Act. Thus, protective addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 4,89,85,000/- is deleted

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)

section 68 of the Act, wherein, it is observed by learned PCIT that the addition was made for Rs.5,85

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

68 of the Act, but the principles of natural justice were not complied with, since the documents which were relied on by the Department and against the assessee, the copies of the same were not provided to the assessee. To demonstrate the 9 ITA.Nos.92-94/RPR/2025 COs No.08-10/RPR/2025 same, learned counsel referred to the reasons for reopening

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

68 of the Act, but the principles of natural justice were not complied with, since the documents which were relied on by the Department and against the assessee, the copies of the same were not provided to the assessee. To demonstrate the 9 ITA.Nos.92-94/RPR/2025 COs No.08-10/RPR/2025 same, learned counsel referred to the reasons for reopening

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

68 of the Act, but the principles of natural justice were not complied with, since the documents which were relied on by the Department and against the assessee, the copies of the same were not provided to the assessee. To demonstrate the 9 ITA.Nos.92-94/RPR/2025 COs No.08-10/RPR/2025 same, learned counsel referred to the reasons for reopening

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

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 that

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

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 that

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

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 that

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

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 that

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

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 that

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

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 that