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.)

32,250/- made by the assessee in his proprietary concern, viz. M/s. Keshwarni Rice Mills (supra) were actually bogus purchases i.e. goods which though were projected to have been purchased from the aforementioned 6 parties were actually procured from the open/grey market. Apart from that, the case of the assessee was, inter alia, reopened for the reason that the commission

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.)

32,250/- made by the assessee in his proprietary concern, viz. M/s. Keshwarni Rice Mills (supra) were actually bogus purchases i.e. goods which though were projected to have been purchased from the aforementioned 6 parties were actually procured from the open/grey market. Apart from that, the case of the assessee was, inter alia, reopened for the reason that the commission

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.)

32,250/- made by the assessee in his proprietary concern, viz. M/s. Keshwarni Rice Mills (supra) were actually bogus purchases i.e. goods which though were projected to have been purchased from the aforementioned 6 parties were actually procured from the open/grey market. Apart from that, the case of the assessee was, inter alia, reopened for the reason that the commission

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.)

32,250/- made by the assessee in his proprietary concern, viz. M/s. Keshwarni Rice Mills (supra) were actually bogus purchases i.e. goods which though were projected to have been purchased from the aforementioned 6 parties were actually procured from the open/grey market. Apart from that, the case of the assessee was, inter alia, reopened for the reason that the commission

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.)

32,250/- made by the assessee in his proprietary concern, viz. M/s. Keshwarni Rice Mills (supra) were actually bogus purchases i.e. goods which though were projected to have been purchased from the aforementioned 6 parties were actually procured from the open/grey market. Apart from that, the case of the assessee was, inter alia, reopened for the reason that the commission

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), RAIPUR vs. MESERS BHAGWATI INDUSTRIES, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.184/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Bhagawati Industries Behind Samrat Talkies, Station Road, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aaifk4253H ……""यथ" / Respondent

section 69C on the basis of GP ratio is unjustified?" 7. Whether on points of law and on points of facts & 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. 48,46,852/- out of total addition made

MESERS P.D. RICE UDYOG,,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 1(1), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is disposed off in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.210/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. P.D Rice Udyog Samrat Talkies, Station Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aadfp0368H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.11/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. P.D Rice Udyog Samrat Talkies, Station Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aadfp0368H

section 69C on the basis of GP ratio is unjustified?" 7. Whether on points of law and on points of facts & 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.26,76,511/- out of total addition made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 1(1), RAIPUR vs. MESERS P.D. RICE UDYOG,, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is disposed off in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.210/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. P.D Rice Udyog Samrat Talkies, Station Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aadfp0368H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.11/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. P.D Rice Udyog Samrat Talkies, Station Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aadfp0368H

section 69C on the basis of GP ratio is unjustified?" 7. Whether on points of law and on points of facts & 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.26,76,511/- out of total addition made

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2),, RAIPUR vs. SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL, NEORA, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.15/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Rajendra Kumar Agrawal, M/S. Amit Chawal Udyog Neora, Tilda, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Acipa5919L ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By :S/Shri G.S. Agrawal & N.C Gupta, Ar’S Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr

section 69C on the basis of GP ratio is unjustified?" 9. Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the ratio of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT-II vs. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P.) Ltd. reported in [2015] 56 taxmann.com 286(Delhi) held that

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. M/S R.R.ENERGY LTD.,, RAIGARH(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

32 taxmann.com 384 (Rajasthan); (u) Luminant Investments (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 40, Mumbai [2014] 42 taxmann.com 14 (Mumbai - Trib.); (v) CIT vs. Gangeshwari Metal (P) Ltd. (2013) 214 Taxman 423, Delhi. (w) CIT Vs.Abdul Aziz (2012) 72 DTR 220 (C.G). CO Nos.02 to 08/RPR/2015 22. I am convinced that the appellant has been able

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. M/S R.R.ENERGY LTD.,, RAIGARH(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

32 taxmann.com 384 (Rajasthan); (u) Luminant Investments (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 40, Mumbai [2014] 42 taxmann.com 14 (Mumbai - Trib.); (v) CIT vs. Gangeshwari Metal (P) Ltd. (2013) 214 Taxman 423, Delhi. (w) CIT Vs.Abdul Aziz (2012) 72 DTR 220 (C.G). CO Nos.02 to 08/RPR/2015 22. I am convinced that the appellant has been able

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. M/S R.R.ENERGY LTD.,, RAIGARH(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

32 taxmann.com 384 (Rajasthan); (u) Luminant Investments (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 40, Mumbai [2014] 42 taxmann.com 14 (Mumbai - Trib.); (v) CIT vs. Gangeshwari Metal (P) Ltd. (2013) 214 Taxman 423, Delhi. (w) CIT Vs.Abdul Aziz (2012) 72 DTR 220 (C.G). CO Nos.02 to 08/RPR/2015 22. I am convinced that the appellant has been able

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. M/S R.R.ENERGY LTD.,, RAIGARH(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

32 taxmann.com 384 (Rajasthan); (u) Luminant Investments (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 40, Mumbai [2014] 42 taxmann.com 14 (Mumbai - Trib.); (v) CIT vs. Gangeshwari Metal (P) Ltd. (2013) 214 Taxman 423, Delhi. (w) CIT Vs.Abdul Aziz (2012) 72 DTR 220 (C.G). CO Nos.02 to 08/RPR/2015 22. I am convinced that the appellant has been able

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. M/S R.R.ENERGY LTD.,, RAIGARH(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

32 taxmann.com 384 (Rajasthan); (u) Luminant Investments (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 40, Mumbai [2014] 42 taxmann.com 14 (Mumbai - Trib.); (v) CIT vs. Gangeshwari Metal (P) Ltd. (2013) 214 Taxman 423, Delhi. (w) CIT Vs.Abdul Aziz (2012) 72 DTR 220 (C.G). CO Nos.02 to 08/RPR/2015 22. I am convinced that the appellant has been able

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. M/S R.R.ENERGY LTD.,, RAIGARH(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

32 taxmann.com 384 (Rajasthan); (u) Luminant Investments (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 40, Mumbai [2014] 42 taxmann.com 14 (Mumbai - Trib.); (v) CIT vs. Gangeshwari Metal (P) Ltd. (2013) 214 Taxman 423, Delhi. (w) CIT Vs.Abdul Aziz (2012) 72 DTR 220 (C.G). CO Nos.02 to 08/RPR/2015 22. I am convinced that the appellant has been able

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. M/S R.R.ENERGY LTD.,, RAIGARH(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

32 taxmann.com 384 (Rajasthan); (u) Luminant Investments (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 40, Mumbai [2014] 42 taxmann.com 14 (Mumbai - Trib.); (v) CIT vs. Gangeshwari Metal (P) Ltd. (2013) 214 Taxman 423, Delhi. (w) CIT Vs.Abdul Aziz (2012) 72 DTR 220 (C.G). CO Nos.02 to 08/RPR/2015 22. I am convinced that the appellant has been able

SANJAY GRAIN PRODUCTS(P) LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 293/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Sanjay Grain Products (P) Ltd. 34-35, Adishwar Complex, Ram Nagar Para, Raipur-492 001 Pan : Aadcs5038G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

section 68 of the Act. 3.2. BECAUSE all the investments were duly recorded in the regular books of accounts maintained by the appellant and therefore, the findings to the contrary in the assessment order are wholly unjustified and unwarranted. 4. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and the principles of natural justice to the extent

SHREE KRISHNA UDYOG, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 841/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shree Krishna Udyog, 17A, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Bhanpuri Industrial Area, Aaykar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492010 Raipur Chhattisgarh, 492001 Pan: Aapfs5659E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G. S. Agrawal, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 16/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). 2. The appellant assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: - “1. That under the facts and the law, the Order of below authorities are bad in law and on facts. Disallowance of Rs. 53,32,200/- kindly be deleted. 2. That under the facts and the law, the Ld. Commissioner

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