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.)

bogus parties revealed that the 16 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani Vs. ACIT-1(1), Raipur ITA Nos. 122 to 124/RPR/2024 ITA Nos. 135, 136 & 138/RPR/2024 assessee had during the subject year made purchases of Rs.14.41 crore (supra) from them i.e. facts which were not available before his predecessor while framing the original assessment in his case vide order passed u/s. 143

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.)

bogus parties revealed that the 16 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani Vs. ACIT-1(1), Raipur ITA Nos. 122 to 124/RPR/2024 ITA Nos. 135, 136 & 138/RPR/2024 assessee had during the subject year made purchases of Rs.14.41 crore (supra) from them i.e. facts which were not available before his predecessor while framing the original assessment in his case vide order passed u/s. 143

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.)

bogus parties revealed that the 16 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani Vs. ACIT-1(1), Raipur ITA Nos. 122 to 124/RPR/2024 ITA Nos. 135, 136 & 138/RPR/2024 assessee had during the subject year made purchases of Rs.14.41 crore (supra) from them i.e. facts which were not available before his predecessor while framing the original assessment in his case vide order passed u/s. 143

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.)

bogus parties revealed that the 16 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani Vs. ACIT-1(1), Raipur ITA Nos. 122 to 124/RPR/2024 ITA Nos. 135, 136 & 138/RPR/2024 assessee had during the subject year made purchases of Rs.14.41 crore (supra) from them i.e. facts which were not available before his predecessor while framing the original assessment in his case vide order passed u/s. 143

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.)

bogus parties revealed that the 16 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani Vs. ACIT-1(1), Raipur ITA Nos. 122 to 124/RPR/2024 ITA Nos. 135, 136 & 138/RPR/2024 assessee had during the subject year made purchases of Rs.14.41 crore (supra) from them i.e. facts which were not available before his predecessor while framing the original assessment in his case vide order passed u/s. 143

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)

purchases of Rs. 4,50,08,383/-, which seemed to be accommodation entries. An order under section 143(3) r/w section 147 was passed on 26th March, 2014, making an entire addition of Rs. 4,50,08,383/- as bogus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1), RAIPUR vs. TIRUPATI BALAJI FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.657/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

143 taxmann.com 173. In the said decision, a specific question was raised on the provisions of Section 69C of the Act as to whether the addition on account of bogus purchases

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

143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 16.12.2019 for the assessment year 2012-13. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: “1. That CIT Appeals-NFAC has erred in both fact and in law in confirming the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. M/S SUNIL SPONGE PVT. LTD., RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.73/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Central Circle)-1, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Sunil Sponge Pvt. Ltd. H. No.11, Jalvihar Colony, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aahcs7999A ……""यथ" / Respondent

purchased the goods from the assessee company at a substantially low price. Also, it was observed by the A.O. that while the assessee company had sold finished goods to various other unrelated parties in the open market at an average sale price of Rs. 16,900.23 per MT, but sold the same to its aforesaid sister concern, viz. M/s Sunil

SHIV TRADING CO., RAIGARH,RAIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

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.101/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shiv Trading Co. Saranggarh Road, Chhatamuda Chowk, Raigarh-496 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aaqfs3990K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Nfac, Delhi. ……""यथ" / Respondent

section 69C of the income tax act, 1961. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.26,88,000/- made on account of bogus purchases without appreciating that the disallowance was made mechanically without considering the evidences furnished by the assessee and also without rejecting the books of account. 3 Without prejudice to Ground No.1 & 2 above

ROSHAN LAL AGRAWAL,KORBA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD-3, KORBA (C.G.)

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 240/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Roshan Lal Agrawal Agrawal Rice Mill, Korba, Champa Road, Pahanda, Dist. Korba (C.G.)-495 677 Pan: Abapa0839N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

143(3) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 20.12.2018 for assessment year 2011- 12. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: “1. That under the facts and the law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC Delhi erred in confirming the addition of Rs.22,78,200/- made

SATISH KUMAR AGRAWAL, BHILAI,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), BHILAI, DURG

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.145/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Satish Kumar Agrawal 3B, Heav Industrial Area, Hathkhoj, Bhilai, Dist. Durg-490 026 (C.G.) Pan: Adqpa1785K

bogus sales i.e. Rs.23,32,540/-. Apart from that, the A.O made an addition towards unexplained commission expenditure, which the assessee would have incurred for procuring the accommodation entries i.e. @0.5% of Rs.23,32,540/- of Rs.11,658/-. 6. Accordingly, the A.O based on his aforesaid deliberations vide his order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated

KANTI LAL AGRAWAL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.33/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Kanti Lal Agrawal House No.101, Goyal Bandhu, Kurra, Dharsiwa, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Afepa0699G

section 133A of the Act on 15.03.2016 at premises of brokers/entry providers like Shri Sanjay Sharma and Shri Kamlesh Kesharwani revealed a nexus issuing fake bills without goods delivery, admitting commissions and cash recycling post-banking, lacking transport evidence. The A.O rejected books deeming these purchases bogus based on unserved notices 3 Kanti Lal Agrawal Vs. ITO-1(2), Raipur

M/S SHRI MANGALAM TRADERS, MAHASAMUND,MAHASAMUD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MAHASAMUND, MAHASAMUD

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.538/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Shri Mangalam Traders 1, Village-Parsada, Post- Bemcha, Tehsil: Mahasamund-493 445 (C.G.) Pan : Abdfs1546F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Mahasamund (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

section under which disallowance has been made under the of income tax act, 1961. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.19,91,000/- made on account of bogus purchases without appreciating the fact that the disallowance was made mechanically without appreciating the evidences furnished by the assessee and also without rejecting the books of account

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)

bogus purchases in accordance with Law. 4. That the leaned assessing officer has erred for disallowing whole purchases by invoking section 69C - arbitrarily without rejecting books of accounts and without doubting the sales. And also when during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee had submitted the copies of invoices for purchases, GSTR-3B, GSTR-1 and GSTR

FIVE STARCONSTRUCTION COMPANY,BHILAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), BHILAI

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.45/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Five Star Construction Company Plot No.96-97, Light Industrial Area, Chawani Chowk, Bhilai (C.G)-490026 Pan : Aaaff4316L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

Section 145 by the A.O, but at the same time are unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the manner in which he had thereafter assessed the income vide his order passed under Sec.144 r.w.s. 143(3), dated 31.12.2016. We, say so, for the reason that though the A.O had in clear and unequivocal terms rejected the books of accounts

SMT. BASANTI BAI AGRAWAL, MAHASAMUND,MAHASAMUND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-MAHASAMUND, MAHASAMUND

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.259/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Smt. Basanti Bai Agrawal Proprietor: Shri Narayan Rice Industries, Main Road, Samhar B.O, Samhar, P.O. Bagbahra, Dist.: Mahasamund-493 449 Pan: Acopa8043K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Mahasamund (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

Purchases were genuine and supported by verifiable documents, yet held as bogus without proper appreciation of evidences produced by the assessee making the addition of Rs.8,04,705/- liable to be deleted. 10. Disallowance of Rs.12,513/- being 20% of vehicle expense is arbitrary and made merely on non-maintenance of logbook without any evidence of personal use is liable

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(1), RAIPUR (CG) vs. SHRI NAND KISHORE AGRAWAL, RAIPUR (CG)

The appeal of the Revenue is DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.235/Rpr/2016 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax- 4(1), Raipur (C.G.) . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Nand Kishore Agrawal, Moti Nagar, Shiv Steel, Boria Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Ajdpa4766H . . . . . . .प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri R. B. Doshi Revenue By : Shri Piyush Tripathi सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 24/03/2023 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Challenges The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Raipur [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 29/02/2016 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] Deleting The Addition Carried Out By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Raipur [For Short “Ao”] Vide Assessment Order Dt. 27/03/2014 Passed U/S 143(3) By For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2011-12. Itat-Raipur Page 1 Of 5

143(3) of the Act by disallowing total purchases made from two parties viz; (1) M/s Donnies Trading Co and (2) M/s Ceeport Iron & Steel for total sum of ₹2,30,05,870/- treating them as bogus. Further calling our attention to para 4 and 5 of the assessment order, the Ld. AR could evidently establish that, the sole reason

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:

section 69C of the Act made addition of Rs.2,59,23,992/-. The Assessing Officer further made addition of Rs.2,59,240/- being the commission incurred by the assessee for the accommodation entries being @ 1% of the total accommodation entries. The Assessing Officer accordingly determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.2,67,80,672/-. 10. Before