SHANTI PARBOILING INDUSTRIES,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.99/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17

bogus purchase, as explained above; and 8. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal." 2. At the very outset, we find that the captioned appeal filed by the assesee involves a delay of 39 days. The assessee has filed an application dated 19.11.2021 seeking condonation

RAM CHAND PANJWANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 151/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ram Chand Panjwani M/S. Gurunanak Rice Mill, Vill : Tulshi, P.O. Tilda, Neora, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Afbpp5595D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

bogus purchases and made a consequential addition of Rs.20,68,750/- to the assessee’s returned income. Apart from that the A.O had also made two additions viz. (i) Rs.1,00,000/- on account of freight expenses and hamali expenses as against claimed by the assessee of 6 Ram Chand Panjwani Vs. ITO-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) Rs.15

INDO LAHRI BIO POWER LTD, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee company is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.529/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Indo Lahri Bio Power Limited 38, Saheed Smarak Complex, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aaaci9125K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

condone the impugned delay of 346 days (as pointed out by the registry) involved in filing of the present appeal by the assessee company. 7. Succinctly stated, the assessee company had filed its return of income for A.Y.2017-18 on 02.11.2017, declaring an income of Rs.Nil. Subsequently, the case of the assessee company was selected for scrutiny assessment u/s.143

KAMLESH KUKREJA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryassessment Year : 2016-17 Kamlesh Kukreja Ito, Ward-1(1), Raipur Prop. Anmol Industries, Vs. Surajpura Road, Bhatapara, Raipur – 493118 Ahvpk6618C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal Department By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-01-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 8. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his original return of income for the impugned assessment year on 06.09.2016 declaring total income of Rs.5,97,440/-. The case of the assessee was reopened on the ground

SAGAR KUKREJA,BHILAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI

In the result, the appellant's appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.508/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sagar Kukreja Plot No.33-34, Baba Deep Singh Nagar, Behind Sindhu Bhawan Bhilai, Supela, Bhilai (C.G.) Pan: Asmpk7043F

bogus purchased made during the year. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has not complied to the notices issued nor filed any written submission which supports its grounds of appeal. Accordingly, I agree with the reasons given by the AO and confirm his action of making addition of Rs.81,44,211/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s.69C

SARTHAK ISPAT PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A No. 14 & Ita Nos. 513, 514, 515, 516 & 517/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

condonation of delay. 6. It is noticed that there are the common, interconnected and identical issues involved in the captioned appeals arising from the orders of Ld. AO passed on an even date, having common findings. The orders passed by Ld. AO u/s 153A are assailed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), which are decided by the First

SARTHAK ISPAT PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A No. 14 & Ita Nos. 513, 514, 515, 516 & 517/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

condonation of delay. 6. It is noticed that there are the common, interconnected and identical issues involved in the captioned appeals arising from the orders of Ld. AO passed on an even date, having common findings. The orders passed by Ld. AO u/s 153A are assailed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), which are decided by the First

SARTHAK ISPAT PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A No. 14 & Ita Nos. 513, 514, 515, 516 & 517/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

condonation of delay. 6. It is noticed that there are the common, interconnected and identical issues involved in the captioned appeals arising from the orders of Ld. AO passed on an even date, having common findings. The orders passed by Ld. AO u/s 153A are assailed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), which are decided by the First

SARTHAK ISPAT PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A No. 14 & Ita Nos. 513, 514, 515, 516 & 517/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

condonation of delay. 6. It is noticed that there are the common, interconnected and identical issues involved in the captioned appeals arising from the orders of Ld. AO passed on an even date, having common findings. The orders passed by Ld. AO u/s 153A are assailed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), which are decided by the First

SARTHAK ISPAT PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A No. 14 & Ita Nos. 513, 514, 515, 516 & 517/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

condonation of delay. 6. It is noticed that there are the common, interconnected and identical issues involved in the captioned appeals arising from the orders of Ld. AO passed on an even date, having common findings. The orders passed by Ld. AO u/s 153A are assailed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), which are decided by the First

BAJRANG LAL AGRAWAL,SURAJPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, AMBIKAPUR, AMBIKAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 260/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Bajrang Lal Agrawal Aman Cold Storage, Bhaiyathan Road, Surajpur C.G-497 229 Pan : Adypa3583F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambikapur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

bogus purchase invoking section 68, treating it to be unexplained income of appellant. The addition/disallowance made by the A.O and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is arbitrary, baseless and not justified. 2. The appellant reserves the right to add, amend or modify any of the ground/s of appeal.” 2. At the very outset I find that the present appeal

C.G. ISPAT PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee partly allowed for fresh adjudication in terms of our observations hereinabove

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.54/Rpr/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Year: 2010-11 V. M/S.C.G.Ispat Pvt.Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner- Raipur Gram Bahesar, Of Income Tax, Near Siltara Industrial Area, Circle-1(1), Raipur, Raipur. Chhattisgarh-492 001. [Pan: Aaccc 4876 B] (अपीलार्थीर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.R.B.Doshi, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr.Dr सुनवाई ई की तारीखरीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2023 घोषणा की तारीखरीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.08.2023

delay in filing of the appeal for 207 days sands condoned. :: 3 :: 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal by erroneously treating it to be infructuous, without appreciating facts of case properly. Ld. CIT(A) has passed order without considering the written submission filed by appellant. Order passed

ADIM JATI SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT, DHORRA,GARIYABAND vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 25/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Adim Jati Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Dhorra Ground Floor, Main Road Dhorra, Gariyaband(C.G)-493889 Pan: Aabaa7991C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle 1(1) Revenue Building, Civil Lines Raipur (C.G.)-492001 ……""यथ" / Respondent

purchase of fertilizer. 4) Rs. 3,54,546 is saving deposits of farmers, deposit into Bank by them. 5) Rs. 36,54,810 is opening balance, amount received from Central Government against society rehabilitation package. 6) Rs. 2,75,292 is opening balance, amount received from State Government against society rehabilitation package. 7)Rs. 95,384 is amount received from

M/S PURVI FINVEST LIMITED,BILASPUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1),, BILASPUR

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

purchase shares of an unknown company. In fact, such a high premium is not commanded even by blue chip quoted companies. It is not a 20 M/s. Purvi Finvest Limited Vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1) case where angel investors had invested upon being satisfied with the innovativeness and entrepreneurial skills of the management. With the amendment to section 68, applicable

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

purchase shares of an unknown company. In fact, such a high premium is not commanded even by blue chip quoted companies. It is not a case where angel investors had invested upon being satisfied with the innovativeness and entrepreneurial skills of the management. With the amendment to section 68, applicable w.e.f from AY 2013-13, not only is the assessee

M/S TRIMURTHY FINVEST LIMITED,BILASPUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), BILASPUR

In the result, appeal of the assesse company being devoid and bereft of any merit is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

purchase shares of an unknown company. In fact, such a high premium is not commanded even by blue chip quoted companies. It is not a case where angel investors had invested upon being satisfied with the innovativeness and entrepreneurial skills of the management. With the amendment to section 68, applicable w.e.f from AY 2013-13, not only is the assessee