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.)

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

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

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

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

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.)

147 of the Act was passed and the income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.55,34,740/- by making an addition of Rs.32,69,500/- @25% of bogus purchases made from M/s. Shrikand Agrotech of Rs.1,30,78,000/-. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee went on appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC who had partly allowed the appeal

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

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

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

147 of the Act; and (iii). Alternatively, the addition towards bogus/unproved purchases made by the A.O while framing the assessment, in backdrop of such purchases/gross profit (to the extent relatable to bogus/unproved purchases) having been subjected to tax under IDS, 2016, had thus resulted to double taxation in the hands of the assessee. 8. I have heard the Ld. authorized

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

147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 28.03.2022 for the assessment year 2013-14. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: “1 That the order is bad in law as well as on facts and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action

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

SHANKAR RICE MILL, MAHASAMUND, MAHASAMUND vs. ITO, MAHASAMUND, MAHASAMUND

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.628/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shankar Rice Mill Kh. No.161, Lakhagarh, Kishanpur B.O., Shanti Nagar, Pithora, Mahasamund Pan: Acffs3275C

purchased any bogus bills. In the absence of documentary evidence, a sum of Rs.66,50,000/- was assessed as Unexplained 3 Shankar Rice Mill Vs ITO, Mahasamund expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act and added to the income of the assessee. The A.O completed the assessment u/s.143(3) read with section 147

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

GAJRAJ GIRI, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed in terms of my observations above

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 222/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Gajraj Giri S/O. Raghuraj Giri, Sai Mandir Road, Jaharbhata, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan : Afgpg0112E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

bogus purchases which resulted in suppressed income - Assessee did not respond to said notice nor requested for 'extension of time -Consequently, Assessing Officer held that he had reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment and passed order dated 26-3-2022 under section 148A(d) for reopening assessment - Assessee challenged said reopening notice on ground that its application dated