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...

132 on 24.5.2011. The explanation of Shri Vijay Agrawal, Manager (Finance & Accounts) of the appellant company about non- availability of share records at the time of search operation at Raigarh as sent to Raipur to prepare appeals before CIT (A) and ITAT appears to be convincing. The statements of other persons belonging to the aforesaid companies also does

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...

132 on 24.5.2011. The explanation of Shri Vijay Agrawal, Manager (Finance & Accounts) of the appellant company about non- availability of share records at the time of search operation at Raigarh as sent to Raipur to prepare appeals before CIT (A) and ITAT appears to be convincing. The statements of other persons belonging to the aforesaid companies also does

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...

132 on 24.5.2011. The explanation of Shri Vijay Agrawal, Manager (Finance & Accounts) of the appellant company about non- availability of share records at the time of search operation at Raigarh as sent to Raipur to prepare appeals before CIT (A) and ITAT appears to be convincing. The statements of other persons belonging to the aforesaid companies also does

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...

132 on 24.5.2011. The explanation of Shri Vijay Agrawal, Manager (Finance & Accounts) of the appellant company about non- availability of share records at the time of search operation at Raigarh as sent to Raipur to prepare appeals before CIT (A) and ITAT appears to be convincing. The statements of other persons belonging to the aforesaid companies also does

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...

132 on 24.5.2011. The explanation of Shri Vijay Agrawal, Manager (Finance & Accounts) of the appellant company about non- availability of share records at the time of search operation at Raigarh as sent to Raipur to prepare appeals before CIT (A) and ITAT appears to be convincing. The statements of other persons belonging to the aforesaid companies also does

KUSH KEDIA vs. A.C.I.T. 2(1), RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 105 & 106/Rpr/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2005-06 Kush Kedia Kedia Bhawan, Mandi Road, Balodabazar.Dist. Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aklpk5127B .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur. (C.G.) ……""यथ" /Respondent

bogus loans from the aforesaid persons, therefore, the Assessing Officer had rightly assumed jurisdiction and framed the assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.153C of the Act. Rebutting the claim of the assessee that no addition was called for considering the merits of the case, for the reason that the Assessing Officer had observed that the bank accounts of the employees were

KUSH KEDIA vs. A.C.I.T. 2(1), RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 105 & 106/Rpr/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2005-06 Kush Kedia Kedia Bhawan, Mandi Road, Balodabazar.Dist. Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aklpk5127B .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur. (C.G.) ……""यथ" /Respondent

bogus loans from the aforesaid persons, therefore, the Assessing Officer had rightly assumed jurisdiction and framed the assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.153C of the Act. Rebutting the claim of the assessee that no addition was called for considering the merits of the case, for the reason that the Assessing Officer had observed that the bank accounts of the employees were

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHILAI vs. NIKHIL MITTAL, BHILAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.656/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.)

132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) in the case of Hanumant Trading and H.K Group on 19.02.2020. In his statement recorded on oath, Shri Mithilesh Kumar Tiwari, proprietor of M/s. H.K Enterprises has provided accommodation entries of bogus purchases and sale bills. That on verification of the details, it was observed that during the year

ANIL KUMAR JAIN,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.584 & 585/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Anil Kumar Jain 34, Maruti Life Style, Ravi Shankar University, S.O, Raipur-492 010 Pan: Ahypj7657H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Bilaspur (C.G.)

132 of the Act was conducted on the residential/business premises of the assessee on 19.02.2020. In response to the notice u/s.153A of the Act, the assessee filed return of income declaring income at Rs.8,13,000/-. That in response to the statutory notices issued to the assessee, the Ld. AR attended the proceedings from time to time and had furnished

ANIL KUMAR JAIN,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.584 & 585/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Anil Kumar Jain 34, Maruti Life Style, Ravi Shankar University, S.O, Raipur-492 010 Pan: Ahypj7657H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Bilaspur (C.G.)

132 of the Act was conducted on the residential/business premises of the assessee on 19.02.2020. In response to the notice u/s.153A of the Act, the assessee filed return of income declaring income at Rs.8,13,000/-. That in response to the statutory notices issued to the assessee, the Ld. AR attended the proceedings from time to time and had furnished

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

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 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act instead of section 69, despite the fact that section 56(2)(vii)(b) is applicable only to individuals and Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs) for Assessment

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)

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 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act instead of section 69, despite the fact that section 56(2)(vii)(b) is applicable only to individuals and Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs) for Assessment

HANUMANT INGOTS PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Accordingly the same is also allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 346 & 347/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

132 was conducted in the case of Sarthak Group, Raipur dated 26.11.2019, whereas the case of assessee was covered under survey u/s 133A of the Act, dated 19.01.2019. In the investigation made by ADIT (Inv.-4)-1, Kolkata in the case of M/s Surakshit Real Estate Ltd. (PAN: AANCS3044G), it is found that the assessee company received

HANUMANT INGOTS PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Accordingly the same is also allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 346 & 347/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

132 was conducted in the case of Sarthak Group, Raipur dated 26.11.2019, whereas the case of assessee was covered under survey u/s 133A of the Act, dated 19.01.2019. In the investigation made by ADIT (Inv.-4)-1, Kolkata in the case of M/s Surakshit Real Estate Ltd. (PAN: AANCS3044G), it is found that the assessee company received

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. SHRI SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL,, RAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.169 & 179/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 & 2016-2017) Acit-2, Raipur Vs Shri Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, Shri Shyam Tower, Kavita Nagar, Main Road, Avanti Vihar, Raipur Pan No. : Afdpa 6944 B (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

132 of the Act was carried out at the premises of the assessee on 17.10.2011. The assessee filed return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 on 17.10.2016 declaring total income of Rs.3,77,79,600/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and upon issuance of statutory notices, the assessee appeared and filed the documents as required

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ( CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. SHRI SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL, RAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.169 & 179/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 & 2016-2017) Acit-2, Raipur Vs Shri Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, Shri Shyam Tower, Kavita Nagar, Main Road, Avanti Vihar, Raipur Pan No. : Afdpa 6944 B (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

132 of the Act was carried out at the premises of the assessee on 17.10.2011. The assessee filed return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 on 17.10.2016 declaring total income of Rs.3,77,79,600/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and upon issuance of statutory notices, the assessee appeared and filed the documents as required

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. SHRI SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaiआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 43/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

132 of the Act and extended the same to the assessment year 2014-15 which in my opinion had no bearing for the assessment proceedings of the impugned assessment year. There is no merit in the contention of the AO that once the rate of profit has been voluntarily declared by the appellant in any previous assessments owing

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. M/S RADHESHYAM AGRAWAL , RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaiआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 42/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Central)-2, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Radheshyam Agarwal L-24, Avanti Vihar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aacfr8916J ……""यथ" / Respondent

132 of the Act and extended the same to the assessment year 2014-15 which in my opinion had no bearing for the assessment proceedings of the impugned assessment year. There is no merit in the contention of the AO that once the rate of profit has been voluntarily declared by the appellant in any previous assessments owing