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.)

31,27,610/- and the corresponding sales of Rs.20,39,52,845/-. Carrying his contention further, the Ld. AR submitted that the alleged bogus purchases of Rs.14,41,32,250/- (supra) pertained to the purchases that were made by the assessee from 6 parties (out of 11 parties). The Ld. AR to buttress his aforesaid claim had taken us through

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.)

31,27,610/- and the corresponding sales of Rs.20,39,52,845/-. Carrying his contention further, the Ld. AR submitted that the alleged bogus purchases of Rs.14,41,32,250/- (supra) pertained to the purchases that were made by the assessee from 6 parties (out of 11 parties). The Ld. AR to buttress his aforesaid claim had taken us through

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.)

31,27,610/- and the corresponding sales of Rs.20,39,52,845/-. Carrying his contention further, the Ld. AR submitted that the alleged bogus purchases of Rs.14,41,32,250/- (supra) pertained to the purchases that were made by the assessee from 6 parties (out of 11 parties). The Ld. AR to buttress his aforesaid claim had taken us through

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.)

31,27,610/- and the corresponding sales of Rs.20,39,52,845/-. Carrying his contention further, the Ld. AR submitted that the alleged bogus purchases of Rs.14,41,32,250/- (supra) pertained to the purchases that were made by the assessee from 6 parties (out of 11 parties). The Ld. AR to buttress his aforesaid claim had taken us through

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.)

31,27,610/- and the corresponding sales of Rs.20,39,52,845/-. Carrying his contention further, the Ld. AR submitted that the alleged bogus purchases of Rs.14,41,32,250/- (supra) pertained to the purchases that were made by the assessee from 6 parties (out of 11 parties). The Ld. AR to buttress his aforesaid claim had taken us through

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

2. It is a company whose principal business is other than that of- a. Banking or granting loan or advance or, b. trading in shares or banking or granting loan or advance, 3. the business of the company consists (wholly or partly) of the purchases and sale of shares of other companies. If the above conditions are satisfied, such company

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

2. It is a company whose principal business is other than that of- a. Banking or granting loan or advance or, b. trading in shares or banking or granting loan or advance, 3. the business of the company consists (wholly or partly) of the purchases and sale of shares of other companies. If the above conditions are satisfied, such company

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

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

section 251 of the Act.” 9. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before me. 10. I have heard the ld. authorized representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been

VIJAY KUMAR CHHATTANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.120/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vijay Kumar Chhattani, S.S.D. Agro Tech Building, Village Tulsi, Neora, Tilda, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Pan: Afapc4410R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

section 145(3) of the LT. Act. For the reasons detailed above, the purchases recorded in the books of account of the assessee amounting to Rs. 1,96,12,500/- are held to be bogus and 25% of such purchase amount works out at Rs.49,03,125/- is hereby added to the total income of the assessee in respect

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 2

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

2. Gitesh Agrawal (Prop. of ACIPA4087B 1,75,39,352 Bogus sales Abhishek Enterprises) 3. Gitesh Agrawal (Prop. of ACIPA4087B 1,31,07,841 Bogus purchases Abhishek Enterprises) 4. M/s. Mayom Steels Ltd. AAGCM0615C 49,76,860/- Bogus purchases 4 Satish Kumar Agrawal Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai 3. The A.O based on the aforementioned information initiated proceedings u/s.148A

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

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

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 income from car sale- 8,10,000/- para-18 Unexplained Expenditure u/s.69C- 1,60,000/- para-19 Unrecorded interest receipt-para- 1,59,000/- 20 Unexplained cash credit u/s.68- 6,56,248/- para-21 16 Five

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1),, RAIPUR vs. SHRI SHARAD GOEL, RAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue stands dismissed, in terms of our observations herein above

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

31-3-1995. The assessee cannot be expected to have control over the activities of his buyer once the transfer is completed. The incidence of exigibility of assessee/vendor is not dependent on an act of commission or omission of vendee. The vendor has no control on future use. What is very important is whether on the date of sale

M/S RAMESH CHEMICALS INDS,,BILASPUR(CG) vs. I.T.O. WARD 1(2), BILASPUR(CG)

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 321/Rpr/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 M/S. Ramesh Chemical Industries Dayalband, Bilaspur (C.G.) Pan: Aabfr3141A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

31-32 of APB. As stated by Shri G.S. Agrawal, the Ld. AR the return of the aforesaid goods by the assessee firm in three tranches to the aforesaid supplier party, viz., M/s. Mamta Industries, Raipur is also duly accounted for in the account of the assessee firm as appearing in the books of account of the said supplier party

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), BHILAI vs. SHRI NITIN SANKHLA, DURG

In the result, grounds no 2 to 7 on this single issue of the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.98/Rpr/2020 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax- Vs Shri Nitin Sankhla 1(1), Bhilai 1St Floor, Navkar Bullion, Above Navin Jeweller, Jawahar Chowk, Durg Pan No. :Bbups 4874 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. : Shri Ravi Agarwal, Ca "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ila M. Parmar, Cit- Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02/06/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

31,42,146/-. The assessee has made sale of Rs. 2,61,80,430/- till 08.11.2016. Thereafter, the assessee deposited old high denomination currency to the tune of Rs. 2.90 Crs. Thus, it was the observations of the ld. AO that the modus operandi adopted by assessee was for adjusting old demonetized notes of various customers by way of booking