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.)

24,750/- 10,00,000/- 14.01.2013 Product, Raipur 2. M/s. Shrikhand 2,37,55,000/- 5,35,000/- 28.11.2012 Agrotech, Raipur 3. M/s. Eaden Rice Mill, 2,69,10,000/- 4,65,000/- 01.09.2012 Raipur 4. M/s. Sakshi Gopal 22,12,500/- 3,68,750/- 10.12.2012 Corporation, Raipur 5. M/s. Shiv Shankar 37,70,000/- 4,71,250/- 11.12.2012 Chawal

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.)

24,750/- 10,00,000/- 14.01.2013 Product, Raipur 2. M/s. Shrikhand 2,37,55,000/- 5,35,000/- 28.11.2012 Agrotech, Raipur 3. M/s. Eaden Rice Mill, 2,69,10,000/- 4,65,000/- 01.09.2012 Raipur 4. M/s. Sakshi Gopal 22,12,500/- 3,68,750/- 10.12.2012 Corporation, Raipur 5. M/s. Shiv Shankar 37,70,000/- 4,71,250/- 11.12.2012 Chawal

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.)

24,750/- 10,00,000/- 14.01.2013 Product, Raipur 2. M/s. Shrikhand 2,37,55,000/- 5,35,000/- 28.11.2012 Agrotech, Raipur 3. M/s. Eaden Rice Mill, 2,69,10,000/- 4,65,000/- 01.09.2012 Raipur 4. M/s. Sakshi Gopal 22,12,500/- 3,68,750/- 10.12.2012 Corporation, Raipur 5. M/s. Shiv Shankar 37,70,000/- 4,71,250/- 11.12.2012 Chawal

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.)

24,750/- 10,00,000/- 14.01.2013 Product, Raipur 2. M/s. Shrikhand 2,37,55,000/- 5,35,000/- 28.11.2012 Agrotech, Raipur 3. M/s. Eaden Rice Mill, 2,69,10,000/- 4,65,000/- 01.09.2012 Raipur 4. M/s. Sakshi Gopal 22,12,500/- 3,68,750/- 10.12.2012 Corporation, Raipur 5. M/s. Shiv Shankar 37,70,000/- 4,71,250/- 11.12.2012 Chawal

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.)

24,750/- 10,00,000/- 14.01.2013 Product, Raipur 2. M/s. Shrikhand 2,37,55,000/- 5,35,000/- 28.11.2012 Agrotech, Raipur 3. M/s. Eaden Rice Mill, 2,69,10,000/- 4,65,000/- 01.09.2012 Raipur 4. M/s. Sakshi Gopal 22,12,500/- 3,68,750/- 10.12.2012 Corporation, Raipur 5. M/s. Shiv Shankar 37,70,000/- 4,71,250/- 11.12.2012 Chawal

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)

Section 250, as expected and incumbent upon the First Appellate Authority. Ld. CIT(A), in his observations at para 5.9 (extracted supra) had categorically observed that the alleged bogus purchases claimed by the assessee could not be treated as genuine, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case. He further held that, “in the present case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), RAIPUR vs. MESERS TIRUPATI BALAJI FOOD PRIVATE LIMITED, TILDA

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.202/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Tirupati Balaji Foods Pvt. Ltd., Tilda-Neora, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aacct7476L ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.13/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Tirupati Balaji Foods Pvt. Ltd., Tilda-Neora, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aacct7476L ……""यथ" / Respondent

section 69C on the basis of GP ratio is unjustified?" 5. "Whether on points of law and on fact & circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) having concurrent powers of the AO u/s 250(4) of the Act, was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.5,37,29,238/- out of total addition made by the AO as the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), RAIPUR vs. MESERS TIRUPATI BALAJI FOOD PRIVATE LIMITED, TILDA

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.202/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Tirupati Balaji Foods Pvt. Ltd., Tilda-Neora, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aacct7476L ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.13/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Tirupati Balaji Foods Pvt. Ltd., Tilda-Neora, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aacct7476L ……""यथ" / Respondent

section 69C on the basis of GP ratio is unjustified?" 5. "Whether on points of law and on fact & circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) having concurrent powers of the AO u/s 250(4) of the Act, was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.5,37,29,238/- out of total addition made by the AO as the assessee

ASHOK KUMAR WADHWANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.117 &118/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17 Ashok Kumar Wadhwani, Ujwal Udyog, Sinodha, Neora, Tilda, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aahpw1400B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

section 145(3) of the L.T.Act. For the reasons detailed above, the purchases recorded in the books of account of the assessee amounting to Rs.2,87,51,400/- are held to be bogus and 25% of such purchase amount works out of Rs.71,87,850/- is hereby added to the total income of the assessee in respect of transaction shown

ASHOK KUMAR WADHWANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.117 &118/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17 Ashok Kumar Wadhwani, Ujwal Udyog, Sinodha, Neora, Tilda, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aahpw1400B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

section 145(3) of the L.T.Act. For the reasons detailed above, the purchases recorded in the books of account of the assessee amounting to Rs.2,87,51,400/- are held to be bogus and 25% of such purchase amount works out of Rs.71,87,850/- is hereby added to the total income of the assessee in respect of transaction shown

SHANTI PARBOILING INDUSTRIES,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.99/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17

section 145(3) of the I.T. Act and in rejecting the books of Accounts of the appellant on the basis of statement recorded by Jt. CIT, Range -1 during a survey operation u/s.133A in the case of third /unrelated/unconnected persons and by using such statements behind the back of the Appellant, without giving any opportunity of rebutting and cross-examining

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

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’).

section 133(6) of the Act to various parties from whom purchases made including the parties detailed at page 4 and 5 of the assessment order had been done. However, there was non-compliance in the cases of parties detailed at page 4 and 5 of the assessment order. Therefore, the Ld. AO referred the matter to the Verification Unit

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)

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-2A. And honorable CIT(A), Raipur has been erred for confirming the action of learned assessing officer. 5. That on the fact

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

section 250 of the Act that date and place of hearing was duly fixed. The assessee was also given notice along with notice to the Assessing Officer. The assessee had ample opportunity to make his submissions by appearing in person or through authorised representative. Despite fixing the case for seventeen hearings, no one had put in appearance nor any justifiable

ANIL KUMAR JAIN,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.584 & 585/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Anil Kumar Jain 34, Maruti Life Style, Ravi Shankar University, S.O, Raipur-492 010 Pan: Ahypj7657H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Bilaspur (C.G.)

bogus purchase and sales bills definitely he would not do it for free and accordingly, has earned commission for providing such services. She vehemently supported the addition made on account of commission income. 9. Having heard submissions of the parties herein even without going into the factual merits of the matter, the legal contention that is there before

ANIL KUMAR JAIN,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.584 & 585/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Anil Kumar Jain 34, Maruti Life Style, Ravi Shankar University, S.O, Raipur-492 010 Pan: Ahypj7657H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Bilaspur (C.G.)

bogus purchase and sales bills definitely he would not do it for free and accordingly, has earned commission for providing such services. She vehemently supported the addition made on account of commission income. 9. Having heard submissions of the parties herein even without going into the factual merits of the matter, the legal contention that is there before