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.)

Section 50C of the Act were applicable, initiated the proceedings u/s.147 of the Act. As observed by us hereinabove, in the present case of the assessee, the facts, viz. (i) that the assessee owned 10 bogus benami concerns through which accommodation entries were being provided by him to certain beneficiaries was not there before the A.O in the course

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.)

Section 50C of the Act were applicable, initiated the proceedings u/s.147 of the Act. As observed by us hereinabove, in the present case of the assessee, the facts, viz. (i) that the assessee owned 10 bogus benami concerns through which accommodation entries were being provided by him to certain beneficiaries was not there before the A.O in the course

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.)

Section 50C of the Act were applicable, initiated the proceedings u/s.147 of the Act. As observed by us hereinabove, in the present case of the assessee, the facts, viz. (i) that the assessee owned 10 bogus benami concerns through which accommodation entries were being provided by him to certain beneficiaries was not there before the A.O in the course

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.)

Section 50C of the Act were applicable, initiated the proceedings u/s.147 of the Act. As observed by us hereinabove, in the present case of the assessee, the facts, viz. (i) that the assessee owned 10 bogus benami concerns through which accommodation entries were being provided by him to certain beneficiaries was not there before the A.O in the course

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.)

Section 50C of the Act were applicable, initiated the proceedings u/s.147 of the Act. As observed by us hereinabove, in the present case of the assessee, the facts, viz. (i) that the assessee owned 10 bogus benami concerns through which accommodation entries were being provided by him to certain beneficiaries was not there before the A.O in the course

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)

143(3) r/w section 147 was passed on 26th March, 2014, making an entire addition of Rs. 4,50,08,383/- as bogus purchase under section 69C of the Act, thereby determining the assessee's income at Rs. 5,43,80,670/-. 4. An appeal was preferred before the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals), who allowed the appeal partly vide

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 should have been made of the entire expenses or only a certain percentage of the bogus expenses. The AO disallowed certain percentage of the bogus purchases in the assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. S.P. BUILDCON PVT. LTD., RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 35 & 38/Rpr/2023) (Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V S.P. Buildcon Private Limited Circle-1(1), S Ff-06, Shyam Plaza, Pandri Bus Stand, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Raipur Pan: Aajcs0653H (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) . (""यथ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Amit M. Jain, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 05-09-2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2023

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed on 29-12-2016 determining total income at Rs.2,54,22,939/-. The following additions/disallowances have been made in the assessment order: (i) Addition u/s 43CA of the Act: Rs.13,71,900/- (ii) Addition on account of provision made under the head construction expenses Rs.5,00,000/- (iii) Disallowance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. S.P. BUILDCON PVT. LTD., RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 35 & 38/Rpr/2023) (Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V S.P. Buildcon Private Limited Circle-1(1), S Ff-06, Shyam Plaza, Pandri Bus Stand, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Raipur Pan: Aajcs0653H (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) . (""यथ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Amit M. Jain, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 05-09-2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2023

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed on 29-12-2016 determining total income at Rs.2,54,22,939/-. The following additions/disallowances have been made in the assessment order: (i) Addition u/s 43CA of the Act: Rs.13,71,900/- (ii) Addition on account of provision made under the head construction expenses Rs.5,00,000/- (iii) Disallowance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2,71,38,940/- 11 Disallowance of bonus bogus 19,95,450/- claimed-para-12 Disallowance claim of bad debts- 14,28,899/- para-13 Bogus claim of material purchase- 4,04,56,014/- para-14 Bogus cash credit u/s.68-para-15 4,82,814/- Unexplained cash credit-para-16 10,00,000/- Unrecorded work receipts-para-17 27,88,260/- Unrecorded

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR PATEL,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 212/Rpr/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18)

purchase of motorcycle in cash i.e. Rs.1,25,000/- is added to his total income treated as unexplained investment u/s 69 and tax is charged as per provisions of section 115BBE of the I.T. Act. The assessee has offered Rs.1,25,000/- for taxation during search proceedings in statement u/s 132(4), however, the assessee has not included Rs.1