ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), RAIPUR vs. MESERS VANDANA ISPAT LIMITED, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

3). There are no adverse facts found in any inquiry. The shares were issue at a premium of Rs 15 per share which is not unusual in view of the scale of assessee's business. In fact issue of share at the same premium to another company M/s Galaxee Llasomng Pvt Ld has been accepted. In the backdrop of these

MESERS S R INGOSTS PRIVATE LIMITED ,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAIPUR

In the result Revised Ground no 4 of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.04/Rpr/2020 (Assessment Year: 2011-2012) M/S S R Ingots Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Cc-1, Raipur House No.16, Opp.Cg Gramin Bank, Choubey Colony, Raipur Pan No. :Aaics 5559 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ajoy Kumar Singh & Smt. Surbhi Jain, Ars राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 12/04/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

3. That in facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in law by initiating the proceedings under section 147 of the Act instead of completing the assessment under section 153A/ 153C of the Act. 4. That the Ld. AO erred in the very invocation of section 148 as the reason to believe suffered from

EAST WEST FINVEST INDIA LIMITED,BILASPUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), BILASPR

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

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

68 has been amended by Finance Act, 2012 inserting the sub-section 1 that source of source has to be proved in the cases of share application money ? 5. "Whether on the facts of the cases and in law, the CIT(A) is justified in replying on jurisdictional high court order in the case of ACIT Vs Venkateshwar (spat

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR vs. MANAV MOTORS, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is disposed-off, in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 151/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18)

68 of the Act.” 3. “Whether in Law and on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the Penalty proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer u/s 270A(2)(a) of the Act for under reporting of income by the assessee.” 4. “The Order of the Hon’ble CIT(Appeals) is erroneous

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1), RAIPUR vs. M/S SUPER IRON AND STEEL PVT LTD.,, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and Cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.261/Rpr/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Acit-4(1), Raipur Vs M/S Super Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd., Pritpal Farm House, Vip Road, Raipur(C.G.) Pan No. : Aaics 2579 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) & Cross Objection No.13/Rpr/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.261/Rpr/2017) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2010-2011) M/S Super Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit-4(1), Raipur Pritpal Farm House, Vip Road, Raipur(C.G.) Pan No. : Aaics 2579 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

section 68 of the Act for the reason that the confirmations from unsecured loan creditors has not been filed which is highly unjustified, unwarranted and not in accordance with the provisions of law and it is requested that the addition of Rs.20,00,000/- may please be deleted. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), BHILAI vs. MESERS ABIS POULTRY PRIVATE LIMITED, RAJNANDGAON

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.233 & 234/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010 & 2011-2012) Acit-2(1), Bhilai Vs M/S Abis Poultry Private Limited, Baldeo Bag, Rajnandgaon Pan No. :Aaeca 87411 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

section 153A should follow to the extent of any documents seized for any relevant assessment year and in any other year no case should be reopened where there is no incriminating documents. In the assessment order the AO has mentioned that certain incriminating documents in respect of the assessee were found. Addition has been made treating the share capital

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), BHILAI vs. MESERS ABIS POULTRY PRIVATE LIMITED, RAJNANDGAON

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.233 & 234/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010 & 2011-2012) Acit-2(1), Bhilai Vs M/S Abis Poultry Private Limited, Baldeo Bag, Rajnandgaon Pan No. :Aaeca 87411 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

section 153A should follow to the extent of any documents seized for any relevant assessment year and in any other year no case should be reopened where there is no incriminating documents. In the assessment order the AO has mentioned that certain incriminating documents in respect of the assessee were found. Addition has been made treating the share capital

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR vs. SHANTA TECHNO PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 155/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

68 and 69C of the Income Tax Act. The entire purchases shown on the basis of fictitious invoices have been debited in the trading account since the transaction has been found to be bogus. The Tribunal having once come to a categorical finding that the amount of Rs.2,92,93,2887- represented alleged purchases from bogus suppliers

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR PATEL,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 212/Rpr/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18)

68 is still pending, therefore, the Ld. PCIT has no authority to invoke provisions of section 263, as his powers are barred by provisions of clause (c) to explanation (1) to section 263(1) of the Act. For the sake of contemplation, the provision referred to has been extracted as under: Section 263(1), explanation

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) ..

3 (Raipur), PN 92 to 97 of PB, relevant finding on PN 94, para no. 10. ITO vs Gauram Prasad Nishad in ITA no. 101/BLPR/2012 dt. 05.10.2015. Transactions in bank account of lender can be subject matter of verification in the hands of the lender. 7. When the lender admitted having given loan, responsibility of the assessee is over. Reliance

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)

92,000/- on 21.01.2015 and 25.02.2015 respectively. The bank account shows no other significant transactions. Further returned income is only Rs. 2,67,300/- and as per balance sheet he has made investment of Rs. 13,68,950/- in this ITA No. 71/RPR/2020 (Shri Shaktidham Infraventure Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT) A.Y. 2015-16 - 5 - company only

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

3): a. No addition could be made without providing documents relied b. Section 68 is not applicable c. Sale of investment, so every credit cannot be considered unexplained u/s 68 d. Purchase of shares has not been doubted and duly accepted by the department e. No opportunity to cross-examine of the persons whose statements relied upon 15 ITA.Nos

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

3): a. No addition could be made without providing documents relied b. Section 68 is not applicable c. Sale of investment, so every credit cannot be considered unexplained u/s 68 d. Purchase of shares has not been doubted and duly accepted by the department e. No opportunity to cross-examine of the persons whose statements relied upon 15 ITA.Nos

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

3): a. No addition could be made without providing documents relied b. Section 68 is not applicable c. Sale of investment, so every credit cannot be considered unexplained u/s 68 d. Purchase of shares has not been doubted and duly accepted by the department e. No opportunity to cross-examine of the persons whose statements relied upon 15 ITA.Nos

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

3 is dismissed.” 8. Ground No. 4: In the ground No. 4, the appellant has challenged the Disallowance u/s 14A-Rs.55,06,957/-. 8.1. The AO applied Section 14A read with Rule 8D and disallowed Rs.55,06,957/-. The AO worked out the disallowance as under: Particulars Amount Disallowance u/r.8D(20(ii) on account

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

MUSADDILAL MANSARAM INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 160/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

92,450/- made under section 69 of the Act on account of the difference between the stamp duty value of the properties and the documented purchase price as per section 50C of the Act, by applying a 10% tolerance limit retrospectively, and further erred in holding that the correct provision applicable was section