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 assessee- company. 8. In support of its case, the assesse inter-alia wishes to rely on some recent judicial pronouncements on similar facts as under: Sr. Case Reference Decision laid down by the No. Judiciary 1. Calcuttta HC in the The issue before the Calcutta High case of PRINCIPAL court in the case of PCIT

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

90,000/- which was kept by his mother and she had given the said amount to him for purchase of the land. The assessee has furnished capital account of himself as well as his mother as on 2006 to 2016. In absence of any further documentary evidence regarding the source of cash deposits the said amount as appearing

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 (as was applicable in its case for the year under consideration), an explanation had been provided as regards the “nature” and “source” of the sum of Rs. 45 lacs (out of Rs. 1,10,03,000/-) recorded as an investment towards share application money/share premium in the books of the assessee company against

DURGAWATI PANDAY,BAIKUNTHPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD NO 01, AMBIKAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.14/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2020-21 Durgawati Panday Ward No.9, Mahalpara, Baikunthpur, Koriya Chhattisgarh-497 335 Pan: Dsipp8404G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Ambikapur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

68 of the Act and the Tribunal was not competent to make the said addition under Section 69-A of the Act, the entire order of the Tribunal stand vitiated in law. Accordingly, we answer the question of law, as framed above, in favour of the appellant-assessee and against the Revenue and hold that the Tribunal

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

SUN AND SUN INFRAMETRIC PVT. LTD.,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAIPUR

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.21/Rpr/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16)

90,150/-. Thereafter, in exercise of jurisdiction under S. 263 of the Act, the case record of the assessment so made was called by the Revisional Commissioner. On its appraisal, the PCIT observed that the impugned assessment order is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. A show- cause notice dated 08.03.2021 (signed

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION)-1, RAIPUR vs. SHRI CHAITANY MAHAPRABHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHAN, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 235/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer, (Exemption)-1, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Chaitany Mahaprabhu Shikshan Sansthan 2, Jindal Niwas, Ramsagarpara, Raipur(C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aaits4845F ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal & Smt. Laxmi Sharma, Cas Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2022

68 of the Act by the A.O. Accordingly, the CIT(A) on the basis of his aforesaid observations vacated the addition of Rs. 2,33,52,000/- that was made by the A.O under Sec.68 of the Act. 6. The revenue being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before

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 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee has credited interest upto 31.03.2011 at Rs.64.726/-. Thus the total addition works out to Rs.1,05,64,726/- u/s.68 of the I.T.Act, 1961. 7 7. The statement of Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, the key person, who was operating the bank account, made admission before the investigation wing. Thereafter Sunil Kumar Agrawal filed

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) ..

68 of Act was triggered on the basis of doubt that the 2 of the lenders were unaware about the loan transaction since such financial affairs were taken care by their husbands, they are squarely unaware of the transactions and their bank account were used by their husbands to deposit cash and extend loan to the assessee. In case

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)

90,000/- and transfer amount of Rs. 5,85,003/- and Rs. 1,73,907/- on 05.01,2015, 20.01.2015 and 21.01.2015 respectively. The bank account shows no other significant transactions. ITA No. 71/RPR/2020 (Shri Shaktidham Infraventure Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT) A.Y. 2015-16 - 4 - Further returned income is only Rs. 2,46,300/- and as per balance sheet

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. SHREE SHYAM SPONGE & POWER P.LTD, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

90,000/- in A.Y. 2006-07 invoking the provisions of Section 68 of the Act in respect of receipt

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. SHREE SHYAM SPONGE & POWER P.LTD, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

90,000/- in A.Y. 2006-07 invoking the provisions of Section 68 of the Act in respect of receipt

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. SHREE SHYAM SPONGE & POWER P.LTD, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

90,000/- in A.Y. 2006-07 invoking the provisions of Section 68 of the Act in respect of receipt

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. SHREE SHYAM SPONGE & POWER P.LTD, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

90,000/- in A.Y. 2006-07 invoking the provisions of Section 68 of the Act in respect of receipt

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. SHREE SHYAM SPONGE & POWER P.LTD, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

90,000/- in A.Y. 2006-07 invoking the provisions of Section 68 of the Act in respect of receipt

ARDENT STEELS PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 337/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"Assessment Year: 2020-21)

90,68,114/- by making a disallowance on account of Health & Education Cess paid for Rs. 47,34,164/- and claimed as expenditure under any other item allowable as Deduction in Schedule BP in ITR. Subsequently, the case record of the assessee are examined by the Ld. PCIT and have observed that during the relevant period the assessee company made

M/S SCC INVESTMENT ,RAIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - I, RAIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

90,67,808/-) 4. Now, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal against the additions sustained by the CIT(A). 3 5. Ld. AR before us filed his written submissions, which read as under:- 1. Only basis of addition is letter dated 21.12.20121 submitted to DDIT(Inv.) by the husband of assessee Shri Sunil Kumar and her brother

TIKAMCHAND SAHU,AINTHAPALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MAHASAMUND, MAHASAMUND

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.494/Rpr/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2022-23 Tikamchand Sahu, Ainthapali Imfl Off Shop, Sambalpur, Odisha, 768004 Pan: Hejps3794R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit and as per the findings of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, he has simply on summary basis had upheld the findings of the AO without specific enquiry and examination regarding the facts of this case. He has simply accepted the findings of the AO without bringing his own reasoning for upholding