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.)

100% disallowance on account of bogus purchases has been upheld: a) Para 6 of N.K. Industries Ltd. [2016] 72 taxmann.com 289 (Gujarat), in which SLP of the assessee has been dismissed vide [2017] 84 taxmann.com 195 (SC)? b) Decision of ITAT Mumbai in the case of Soman Sun City in I.T.A. No. 2960/Mum/2016? 3. Without prejudice to the above, wh4ther

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.)

100% disallowance on account of bogus purchases has been upheld: a) Para 6 of N.K. Industries Ltd. [2016] 72 taxmann.com 289 (Gujarat), in which SLP of the assessee has been dismissed vide [2017] 84 taxmann.com 195 (SC)? b) Decision of ITAT Mumbai in the case of Soman Sun City in I.T.A. No. 2960/Mum/2016? 3. Without prejudice to the above, wh4ther

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.)

100% disallowance on account of bogus purchases has been upheld: a) Para 6 of N.K. Industries Ltd. [2016] 72 taxmann.com 289 (Gujarat), in which SLP of the assessee has been dismissed vide [2017] 84 taxmann.com 195 (SC)? b) Decision of ITAT Mumbai in the case of Soman Sun City in I.T.A. No. 2960/Mum/2016? 3. Without prejudice to the above, wh4ther

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.)

100% disallowance on account of bogus purchases has been upheld: a) Para 6 of N.K. Industries Ltd. [2016] 72 taxmann.com 289 (Gujarat), in which SLP of the assessee has been dismissed vide [2017] 84 taxmann.com 195 (SC)? b) Decision of ITAT Mumbai in the case of Soman Sun City in I.T.A. No. 2960/Mum/2016? 3. Without prejudice to the above, wh4ther

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.)

100% disallowance on account of bogus purchases has been upheld: a) Para 6 of N.K. Industries Ltd. [2016] 72 taxmann.com 289 (Gujarat), in which SLP of the assessee has been dismissed vide [2017] 84 taxmann.com 195 (SC)? b) Decision of ITAT Mumbai in the case of Soman Sun City in I.T.A. No. 2960/Mum/2016? 3. Without prejudice to the above, wh4ther

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)

100% of the bogus purchases relying upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of PCIT vs. S.V. Jiwani [2022] 145 taxmann.com 230 (Bombay) (supra) and the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT vs. Simit Sheth (supra) ignoring the facts brought on record by the AO and without

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

M/S. EXOTICS FATS EXIM,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4), RAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of the aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.130/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Exotics Fats Exim 3Rd Floor, C/O. Dayalal Meghji & Co., Dm Plaza, Chhotapara, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aacfe1065H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(4), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

section 145(3), addition of Rs.1,40,260 is liable to be deleted. 2. On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, ld. AO & Id. CIT(A) has erred in disallowing Rs.1,40,260 which is 25% of the alleged bogus purchases at Rs.5,61,050 considered by the ld. AO from M/s. Syndicate Corporation, Raipur; arbitrary/ baseless

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. SHRI VINAY AGRAWAL, MAHASAMUND

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 29 & 30/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15, 2015-16)

bogus purchases @ 8% which comes to Rs.7,31,000/- (8% of Rs.91,37,500/-) and the extra profit shown by the assessee in the return filed in response to notice u/s 148 for Rs.2,79,600/- was reduced from the aforesaid estimated profit, accordingly, the addition of Rs.4,51,400/- (7,31,000 – 2,79,600) was sustained

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. SHRI VINAY AGRAWAL, MAHASAMUND

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 29 & 30/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15, 2015-16)

bogus purchases @ 8% which comes to Rs.7,31,000/- (8% of Rs.91,37,500/-) and the extra profit shown by the assessee in the return filed in response to notice u/s 148 for Rs.2,79,600/- was reduced from the aforesaid estimated profit, accordingly, the addition of Rs.4,51,400/- (7,31,000 – 2,79,600) was sustained

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

section 115BBE by A.O. and sustained by the CIT-Appeal is unjustified, unwarranted and uncalled for. 3 Indo Lahri Bio Power Limited Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur ITA No.529 /RPR/2024 4. The appellant reserves the right to add, amend or alter any grounds of appeal at any time of hearing.” 2. Shri Bikram Jain, Ld. Authorized Representative (for short

INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1),BHILAI, BHILAI vs. ASHISH GUPTA, DURG

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.624/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11

purchase bills and in that regard, the A.O had relied on the report of the Commercial Tax Officer as well as Regional Economic Intelligence Bureau information which detected certain bogus concerns which were involved in issuing bills without actual delivery of goods. The A.O writes that one such concern was M/s. Laxmi Trading Company Raipur, in which, the assessee

SHREE SHYAM SALES CORPORATION,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1(2), RAIPUR. (C.G.), RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 188/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

100 dealers of the state have been found to have done bogus transaction with M/S Shyam Sales Corporation. From the above facts it is evident that the purchases/sales shown by the assessee firm are bogus. The assessee has furnished copy of statement of bank account no 25930003500 in IndusInd Bank maintained during the relevant year but all the entries

M/S ADARSH RICE MILL,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.84/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Adarsh Rice Mill 123, Jhanki, Abhanpur, Dist.-Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aamfa1207F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

bogus purchases of Rs.7,58,800/-, the A.O determined the income of the assessee firm at Rs.2,26,130/-. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeal) but without any success. 4. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before me. 4 M/s. Adarsh Rice

BHARAT BENEFICATION & POWER PVT. LTD., RAIGARH,RAIGARH vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 336/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

bogus purchase of Rs. 4,57,79,434/- transacted with M/s Abhishek Enterprises and M/s Pratyush Steels. The case of assessee was subsequently, examined by the Ld. Pr. CIT, Central, Bhopal, thereby certain issues were emerged, which in the opinion of Ld. PCIT are to be 3 Bharat Benefication & Power Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal

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.)

bogus LTCG or loss. Resultantly, the A.O invoked section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) to make additions of Rs.6,12,692/- and Rs.11,93,100/- and further invoked section 69C of the Act to add Rs.18,381/- and Rs.35,793/- as purported commission expenses. 3 ITO, Raipur Vs. Sakshi Saggar 3. That being aggrieved

M/S RAMESH CHEMICALS INDS,,BILASPUR(CG) vs. I.T.O. WARD 1(2), BILASPUR(CG)

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 321/Rpr/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 M/S. Ramesh Chemical Industries Dayalband, Bilaspur (C.G.) Pan: Aabfr3141A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

100 bags of raw agarbatti (@ Rs.864/- per bag) as against the actual purchase value, i.e., 96 bags (@ Rs.864/- per bags of Rs.82,944/-). Apart from that, the difference with respect to the remaining two purchase transactions, i.e., those made on 10.12.2004 vide bill No.1687; and on 24.12.2004 vide challan No.1 is stated to be on account of inclusion

SOUTH EASTERN COAL FIELDS LTD.,,BILASPUR(CG) vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

section 5, when it is received or deemed to be received by a person. All income for the purpose of charge of income-tax and computation of total income is required to be classified under distinct heads of income such as salaries, income from house property, profits and gains of business or profession, capital gains and income from other sources