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.)

26-33 of APB. The Ld. AR submitted that the A.O while framing the assessment had, inter alia, held that the assessee had not made genuine sale of 143295 Qnts. of paddy/rice/broken rice and had only provided accommodation entries. The Ld. AR submitted that the A.O based on his aforesaid observation had after, inter alia, treating the assessee

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.)

26-33 of APB. The Ld. AR submitted that the A.O while framing the assessment had, inter alia, held that the assessee had not made genuine sale of 143295 Qnts. of paddy/rice/broken rice and had only provided accommodation entries. The Ld. AR submitted that the A.O based on his aforesaid observation had after, inter alia, treating the assessee

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.)

26-33 of APB. The Ld. AR submitted that the A.O while framing the assessment had, inter alia, held that the assessee had not made genuine sale of 143295 Qnts. of paddy/rice/broken rice and had only provided accommodation entries. The Ld. AR submitted that the A.O based on his aforesaid observation had after, inter alia, treating the assessee

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.)

26-33 of APB. The Ld. AR submitted that the A.O while framing the assessment had, inter alia, held that the assessee had not made genuine sale of 143295 Qnts. of paddy/rice/broken rice and had only provided accommodation entries. The Ld. AR submitted that the A.O based on his aforesaid observation had after, inter alia, treating the assessee

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.)

26-33 of APB. The Ld. AR submitted that the A.O while framing the assessment had, inter alia, held that the assessee had not made genuine sale of 143295 Qnts. of paddy/rice/broken rice and had only provided accommodation entries. The Ld. AR submitted that the A.O based on his aforesaid observation had after, inter alia, treating the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), RAIPUR vs. MESERS BHAGWATI INDUSTRIES, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.184/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Bhagawati Industries Behind Samrat Talkies, Station Road, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aaifk4253H ……""यथ" / Respondent

section 69C on the basis of GP ratio is unjustified?" 7. Whether on points of law and on points of facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) having concurrent powers of the AO u/s 250(4) of the Act, was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 48,46,852/- out of total addition made

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)

Section 250 of the Act. 14. Before parting with, we may herein observe that as the matter in present case pertains to bogus purchases/ sham transactions, the observations of this tribunal in the case of Subedar Pathak vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Raipur, in ITA No. 338/RPR/2025 Dated 09.06.2025, would be relevant, the same therefore, are extracted hereunder

MESERS P.D. RICE UDYOG,,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 1(1), RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.210/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. P.D Rice Udyog Samrat Talkies, Station Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aadfp0368H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.11/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. P.D Rice Udyog Samrat Talkies, Station Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aadfp0368H

section 69C on the basis of GP ratio is unjustified?" 7. Whether on points of law and on points of facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) having concurrent powers of the AO u/s 250(4) of the Act, was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.26,76,511/- out of total addition made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 1(1), RAIPUR vs. MESERS P.D. RICE UDYOG,, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.210/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. P.D Rice Udyog Samrat Talkies, Station Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aadfp0368H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.11/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. P.D Rice Udyog Samrat Talkies, Station Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aadfp0368H

section 69C on the basis of GP ratio is unjustified?" 7. Whether on points of law and on points of facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) having concurrent powers of the AO u/s 250(4) of the Act, was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.26,76,511/- out of total addition made

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

section 69C on the basis of GP ratio is unjustified?" 9. Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the ratio of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT-II vs. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P.) Ltd. reported in [2015] 56 taxmann.com 286(Delhi) held that

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.

10% of Rs.2,87,51,400/-) and agree to pay tax on the said amount." 5. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the assessee was specifically required to prove that the purchase bills are genuine and that he has actually purchased the items reflected in the bills. This was more particularly so, because in all such cases where bogus purchase

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.

10% of Rs.2,87,51,400/-) and agree to pay tax on the said amount." 5. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the assessee was specifically required to prove that the purchase bills are genuine and that he has actually purchased the items reflected in the bills. This was more particularly so, because in all such cases where bogus purchase

RAVI KEDIA, BALODA BAZAR,BALODA BAZAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD BHATAPARA, BALODA BAZAR, BALODA BAZAR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 111/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ravi Kedia, Ekdand Chawal Udyog, Village Risda, Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh-493 332 Pan : Ajrpk5750D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Bhatapara (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

26,300/-. 5. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without success. 6. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before me. 7. The Ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘AR’) for the assessee had come up with three pronged contentions, viz. (i). that addition

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...

section 68 are uncalled for and hence, deleted. The appellant gets relief of Rs. 12,71,00,000/- in A.Y 2006-07 and Rs.6,51,50,000/- in A.Y 2007-08 23. 10. Ground Nos.3 to 5 in appeals of Revenue for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 and ground Nos.1 to 4 in appeals for assessment years

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...

section 68 are uncalled for and hence, deleted. The appellant gets relief of Rs. 12,71,00,000/- in A.Y 2006-07 and Rs.6,51,50,000/- in A.Y 2007-08 23. 10. Ground Nos.3 to 5 in appeals of Revenue for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 and ground Nos.1 to 4 in appeals for assessment years

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...

section 68 are uncalled for and hence, deleted. The appellant gets relief of Rs. 12,71,00,000/- in A.Y 2006-07 and Rs.6,51,50,000/- in A.Y 2007-08 23. 10. Ground Nos.3 to 5 in appeals of Revenue for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 and ground Nos.1 to 4 in appeals for assessment years

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...

section 68 are uncalled for and hence, deleted. The appellant gets relief of Rs. 12,71,00,000/- in A.Y 2006-07 and Rs.6,51,50,000/- in A.Y 2007-08 23. 10. Ground Nos.3 to 5 in appeals of Revenue for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 and ground Nos.1 to 4 in appeals for assessment years

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...

section 68 are uncalled for and hence, deleted. The appellant gets relief of Rs. 12,71,00,000/- in A.Y 2006-07 and Rs.6,51,50,000/- in A.Y 2007-08 23. 10. Ground Nos.3 to 5 in appeals of Revenue for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 and ground Nos.1 to 4 in appeals for assessment years

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...

section 68 are uncalled for and hence, deleted. The appellant gets relief of Rs. 12,71,00,000/- in A.Y 2006-07 and Rs.6,51,50,000/- in A.Y 2007-08 23. 10. Ground Nos.3 to 5 in appeals of Revenue for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 and ground Nos.1 to 4 in appeals for assessment years