KAMLESH KUMAR KESHARWANI,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.122, 123 & 124/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani 112, Janta Colony, Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aewpk6876Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.135, 136 & 138/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Central)-1, Raipur (C.G.)

Loss account. No manufacturing activity has been done by the assessee during the F.Y. 2012-13. - -while, in this case, no manufacturing activities has been done by the assessee and the Ld. AO has only objected some part of its 'trading activities' and 'trading results' as enumerated above in Pt No.1.1, and thus, the assessee is mainly engaged in 'trading

DCIT(CENTRAL)-1, RAIPUR vs. KALMESH KUMAR KESHARWANI, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.122, 123 & 124/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani 112, Janta Colony, Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aewpk6876Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.135, 136 & 138/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Central)-1, Raipur (C.G.)

Loss account. No manufacturing activity has been done by the assessee during the F.Y. 2012-13. - -while, in this case, no manufacturing activities has been done by the assessee and the Ld. AO has only objected some part of its 'trading activities' and 'trading results' as enumerated above in Pt No.1.1, and thus, the assessee is mainly engaged in 'trading

DCIT(CENTRAL)-1,RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. KALMESH KUMAR KESHARWANI, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.122, 123 & 124/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani 112, Janta Colony, Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aewpk6876Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.135, 136 & 138/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Central)-1, Raipur (C.G.)

Loss account. No manufacturing activity has been done by the assessee during the F.Y. 2012-13. - -while, in this case, no manufacturing activities has been done by the assessee and the Ld. AO has only objected some part of its 'trading activities' and 'trading results' as enumerated above in Pt No.1.1, and thus, the assessee is mainly engaged in 'trading

KAMLESH KUMAR KESHARWANI,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.122, 123 & 124/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani 112, Janta Colony, Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aewpk6876Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.135, 136 & 138/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Central)-1, Raipur (C.G.)

Loss account. No manufacturing activity has been done by the assessee during the F.Y. 2012-13. - -while, in this case, no manufacturing activities has been done by the assessee and the Ld. AO has only objected some part of its 'trading activities' and 'trading results' as enumerated above in Pt No.1.1, and thus, the assessee is mainly engaged in 'trading

DCIT(CENTRAL)-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. KALMESH KUMAR KESHARWANI, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.122, 123 & 124/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani 112, Janta Colony, Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aewpk6876Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.135, 136 & 138/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Central)-1, Raipur (C.G.)

Loss account. No manufacturing activity has been done by the assessee during the F.Y. 2012-13. - -while, in this case, no manufacturing activities has been done by the assessee and the Ld. AO has only objected some part of its 'trading activities' and 'trading results' as enumerated above in Pt No.1.1, and thus, the assessee is mainly engaged in 'trading

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2),, RAIPUR vs. SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL, NEORA, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.15/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Rajendra Kumar Agrawal, M/S. Amit Chawal Udyog Neora, Tilda, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Acipa5919L ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By :S/Shri G.S. Agrawal & N.C Gupta, Ar’S Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr

Loss account pertained to rice/broken rice that was loaded by him in the railway rakes during the year; (ii). that payment of transportation charges for 82615 quintals of rice that was loaded for transportation through railway rakes booked by the assessee during the year were made by buyers; and (iii). that as the assessee on several occasions was not able

ASHOK KUMAR WADHWANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.117 &118/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17 Ashok Kumar Wadhwani, Ujwal Udyog, Sinodha, Neora, Tilda, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aahpw1400B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

loss account Freight expenses of Rs.10,99,144/-, Hamali expenses of Rs.2,35,116/- are claimed. On verification and also during the course of scrutiny assessment, it is admitted that all the expenses have been claimed by the assessee on the basis of self made vouchers. The ledger account only shows the freight payment of certain quintal of paddy

ASHOK KUMAR WADHWANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.117 &118/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17 Ashok Kumar Wadhwani, Ujwal Udyog, Sinodha, Neora, Tilda, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aahpw1400B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

loss account Freight expenses of Rs.10,99,144/-, Hamali expenses of Rs.2,35,116/- are claimed. On verification and also during the course of scrutiny assessment, it is admitted that all the expenses have been claimed by the assessee on the basis of self made vouchers. The ledger account only shows the freight payment of certain quintal of paddy

SHRI SHRI TARUN PUGALIA JAIN,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(4), RAIPUR (CG)

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 272/Rpr/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Tarun Pugalia Jain Shop No.9, Kamala Super Bazar, Telghani Naka, Station Road, Raipur (C.G). Pan : Aacch4665D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Raipur. ……""यथ" / Respondent

carried the matter before us. 6. At the time of hearing of appeal, the Ld. Authorized Representative (in short ‘AR’) of the assessee took us through the facts of the case. Our attention was drawn by the Ld. AR to the copy of the ‘reasons to believe’ on the basis of which the case of the assessee was reopened u/s.147

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. M/S R.R.ENERGY LTD.,, RAIGARH(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

carried the matter before the CIT(A) and submitted that the addition of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of so called bogus purchase of husk made by the AO in each of the years i.e., A.Y. 2006-07 to 2012-13 was without any basis, under presumption & surmises and arbitrary. The AO suspected that the appellant who was enjoying biomass

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. M/S R.R.ENERGY LTD.,, RAIGARH(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

carried the matter before the CIT(A) and submitted that the addition of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of so called bogus purchase of husk made by the AO in each of the years i.e., A.Y. 2006-07 to 2012-13 was without any basis, under presumption & surmises and arbitrary. The AO suspected that the appellant who was enjoying biomass

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. M/S R.R.ENERGY LTD.,, RAIGARH(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

carried the matter before the CIT(A) and submitted that the addition of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of so called bogus purchase of husk made by the AO in each of the years i.e., A.Y. 2006-07 to 2012-13 was without any basis, under presumption & surmises and arbitrary. The AO suspected that the appellant who was enjoying biomass

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. M/S R.R.ENERGY LTD.,, RAIGARH(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

carried the matter before the CIT(A) and submitted that the addition of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of so called bogus purchase of husk made by the AO in each of the years i.e., A.Y. 2006-07 to 2012-13 was without any basis, under presumption & surmises and arbitrary. The AO suspected that the appellant who was enjoying biomass

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. M/S R.R.ENERGY LTD.,, RAIGARH(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

carried the matter before the CIT(A) and submitted that the addition of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of so called bogus purchase of husk made by the AO in each of the years i.e., A.Y. 2006-07 to 2012-13 was without any basis, under presumption & surmises and arbitrary. The AO suspected that the appellant who was enjoying biomass

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. M/S R.R.ENERGY LTD.,, RAIGARH(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

carried the matter before the CIT(A) and submitted that the addition of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of so called bogus purchase of husk made by the AO in each of the years i.e., A.Y. 2006-07 to 2012-13 was without any basis, under presumption & surmises and arbitrary. The AO suspected that the appellant who was enjoying biomass

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. M/S R.R.ENERGY LTD.,, RAIGARH(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

carried the matter before the CIT(A) and submitted that the addition of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of so called bogus purchase of husk made by the AO in each of the years i.e., A.Y. 2006-07 to 2012-13 was without any basis, under presumption & surmises and arbitrary. The AO suspected that the appellant who was enjoying biomass

FAKIR CHAND AGRAWAL,BILASPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 61/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Fakir Chand Agrawal Plot No. 22 & 23, Anjani Rani Durgavati, Industrial Area, Pendra Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) Pan : Aezpa7821C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Raipur-1. ……""यथ" / Respondent

bogus purchases of Rs.1,04,85,751/- as an unexplained expenditure incurred by the assessee u/s.69C of the Act and computed the consequential tax liability as per provisions of Section 4 Fakir Chand Agrawal Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 115BBE of the Act, therefore, having failed to do so his order passed u/s.143(3) dated 25.12.2019 was erroneous

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)BHILAI, BHILAI vs. MESSERS SHREE PARVATI SCRAP PROCESSOR PRIVATE LIMITED, BHILAI

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.205/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.)

loss account is beyond comprehension and is devoid of any bereft of any reasoning. If the AO was of the view that the assessee company had not carried out any business during the year, then the proper recourse available to him was to have held the sale receipts as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. However, there

INCOME TAX OFFICER, RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. SAKSHI SAGGAR, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.219/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2019-20 The Income Tax Officer, Raipur (C.G.)

carried the matter before the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and the said authority after perusing the assessment order and the submissions of the assessee observed and held as follows: “5.3.3 Upon perusal of the appellant's submissions, it is observed that all purchases and sales were executed through the stock exchange with STT duly paid, the shares were reflected