DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. RAJESH KUMAR SINGH, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 455/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2022-23) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Rajesh Kumar Singh, New Purena, Circle-1(1), Aaykar Bhawan, Ravigram, Ravigram S O, Civil Lines, Raipur, C. G., 492001. Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001 Pan: Ajnps2776H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Suraj Gupta, Advocate (Virtually) राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 19/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2022-23 Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.05.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [‘Cit(A)’], National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’), Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

bogus in nature.” [Emphasis supplied] 4. Dr. Priyanka Patel, Ld. Sr. DR contended that some of the parties from whom purchases claimed having done were not found at the given addresses by the Verification Unit who was verifying their physical presence on reference of the Ld. AO. The physical verification, under the faceless scheme of the assessment

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(1), RAIPUR, CIVIL LINES, RAIPUR vs. SMITA MUKESH KEDIA, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 451/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2019-20)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), dated 23.05.2025, for the Assessment Year 2019-20, which in turn arises from the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated passed by 16.03.2024 (in short “Ld. AO”). 2 ITO-4(1), Raipur Vs. Smita Mukesh Kedia 2. The grounds of appeal raised

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

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

SAGAR KUKREJA,BHILAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI

In the result, the appellant's appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.508/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sagar Kukreja Plot No.33-34, Baba Deep Singh Nagar, Behind Sindhu Bhawan Bhilai, Supela, Bhilai (C.G.) Pan: Asmpk7043F

bogus ITC on fake sale bills for F.Y.2017-18 amounting to Rs.69,01,873/- to the assessee to claim fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) and to dispose their output GST liability with the help of fake input credit as well as suppress their income by claiming fake/bogus purchases as their expenses, initiated proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act. Notice

KAMLESH KUKREJA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 379/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), dated 05.07.2024, for the Assessment Year 2015-16, which in turn arises from the order of Income Tax Officer, Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, (in short “Ld. AO”) u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 30.05.2023. 2 Kamlesh Kukreja Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur

KIRAN AGRAWAL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of over aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 655/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2022-23)

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act is highly illegal, bad in law, suffers from legal infirmities, vitiated, unsustainable and hence liable to be quashed on the count of this ground alone. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in affirming the action

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), RAIPUR vs. KANHA GRAIN PROCESS, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryassessment Year : 2015-16 Ito, Ward 1(2), Raipur Kanha Grain Process Vs. Station Road, Tilda Neora, Raipur – 493114 Pan: Aaifk3222G (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:

144B of the Act on 23.05.2023 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,27,01,710/- by making addition of Rs.1,19,00,000/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act on account of bogus purchases. 4. Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. RAHUL KATHURIA, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.151 & 152/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 The Income Tax Officer/Income Tax Officer-3(1) Raipur (C.G.)

Bogus Long term capital gain (LTCG)/Loss. ……. The purchase and sale transactions were carried through registered broker and through demat accounts but the assessee cannot escape from the onus of proving the transaction to be genuine. It is a fact that the assessee has purchased and the sold i.e. traded the scrip of Oasis Tradelink in order to claim

INCOME TAX OFFICER, RAIPUR vs. RAHUL KATHURIA, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.151 & 152/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 The Income Tax Officer/Income Tax Officer-3(1) Raipur (C.G.)

Bogus Long term capital gain (LTCG)/Loss. ……. The purchase and sale transactions were carried through registered broker and through demat accounts but the assessee cannot escape from the onus of proving the transaction to be genuine. It is a fact that the assessee has purchased and the sold i.e. traded the scrip of Oasis Tradelink in order to claim

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)

144B was assailed by the assessee before the First Appellate Authority i.e., Ld. CIT(A), NFAC on 13.04.2022. Such facts were duly brought to the knowledge of Ld. PCIT. Ld. AR further submitted that the issue qua the addition u/s 68 in treating the sale transaction as bogus was the subject matter of appeal. Ld. AR further argued that

ARDENT STEELS PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 337/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"Assessment Year: 2020-21)

144B of the Act was erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue, therefore, the same needs to be revised under the provisions of section 263 of the Act. 3 Ardent Steels Private Limited vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 3. With the aforesaid observations, Ld. PCIT issued a show-cause notice dated 27.09.2024 asking the assessee

MADANLAL LODHA,RAIPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: Ita 32/Rpr/2022 (Assessment Years:2017-18) Madanlal Lodha, V Pr. Commissioner Of Income Ta, C/O M/S Prakash Trading Comp. S Raipur-(I) Shop No. 109 & 110, Textile Market, Pandri, Raipur, (C.G.) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By : Shri R.B. Doshi, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By : Shri S.K. Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 03-08-2023 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20-10-2023

bogus unsecured loan, share capital, accommodation entry through companies manage by them. The 4 assessee has neither paid any interest or repaid the principal of Unsecured loan. Ld. PCIT further mentioned that the AO failed to verify the genuineness of transaction by cross verification of the lenders. It was also the apprehension of the Ld. PCIT that it is beyond