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 147 of the Act, and also the complete details of the income assessed vide order u/ss. 143(3)/144 of the Act, dated 31.03.2016 were provided in the “reasons to believe”, dated 05.02.2018, therefore, the aforesaid contention of the Ld. AR being devoid and bereft of any merit is rejected. 21. Per contra, Dr. Priyanka Patel, Ld. Sr. Departmental

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 147 of the Act, and also the complete details of the income assessed vide order u/ss. 143(3)/144 of the Act, dated 31.03.2016 were provided in the “reasons to believe”, dated 05.02.2018, therefore, the aforesaid contention of the Ld. AR being devoid and bereft of any merit is rejected. 21. Per contra, Dr. Priyanka Patel, Ld. Sr. Departmental

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 147 of the Act, and also the complete details of the income assessed vide order u/ss. 143(3)/144 of the Act, dated 31.03.2016 were provided in the “reasons to believe”, dated 05.02.2018, therefore, the aforesaid contention of the Ld. AR being devoid and bereft of any merit is rejected. 21. Per contra, Dr. Priyanka Patel, Ld. Sr. Departmental

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 147 of the Act, and also the complete details of the income assessed vide order u/ss. 143(3)/144 of the Act, dated 31.03.2016 were provided in the “reasons to believe”, dated 05.02.2018, therefore, the aforesaid contention of the Ld. AR being devoid and bereft of any merit is rejected. 21. Per contra, Dr. Priyanka Patel, Ld. Sr. Departmental

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 147 of the Act, and also the complete details of the income assessed vide order u/ss. 143(3)/144 of the Act, dated 31.03.2016 were provided in the “reasons to believe”, dated 05.02.2018, therefore, the aforesaid contention of the Ld. AR being devoid and bereft of any merit is rejected. 21. Per contra, Dr. Priyanka Patel, Ld. Sr. Departmental

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 145(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer acquired the mandate even to add the whole amount of purchases found as bogus to the total income of the assessee. One such case was Sri Ganesh Rice Mills Vs. CIT 294 ITR 316 (All) wherein the entire amount of bogus purchases, from 5 parties, was disallowed and same was also

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’).

36,50,000/- all the parties were not traceable and, hence, transactions made with them couldn't be verified physically by the Verification Unit and remain suspicious. Hence, it is concluded that genuineness of the purchase transactions amounting to Rs.3,13,41,798 / only have been proved and purchases to the tune of Rs.2,42,54,206/- remained unverified

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 purchase treating the same as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act for Rs.1,23,97,06,013/- and 4 Shree Shyam Sales Corporation vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur the total assessed income of the assessee was determined at Rs.1,23,98,67,719/-. 3. Aggrieved with the aforesaid findings enhancing the income of assessee

MAPSS FATS AND PROTEINS PRIVATE LIMITED,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2),RAIPUR, AAYKAR BHAWAN CIVIL LINES

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.246/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2009-10 Mapss Fats & Proteins Private Limited Shanti Sadan, Chouby Colony, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aafcm7263D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

36 filed by the assessee. 5. That being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. It is noted that as per Pages 18 & 19 of the impugned order, the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC vide an ex-parte order had dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to non-compliance by the assessee

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

BHARAT BENEFICATION & POWER PVT. LTD., RAIGARH,RAIGARH vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 336/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

section 263, the short synopsis submitted before us is extracted hereunder for the sake of clarity: Bharat Benefication & Power Pvt. Ltd., Raigarh AY 2018/19 Submission of assessee 1. Rs. 70 lakh Sky Alloys & Power Pvt. Ltd. i) Impugned assessment reopened on the issue of alleged bogus purchases from two parties. ii) In the reopened assessment, as per the settled

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

purchase- 4,04,56,014/- para-14 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-

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

SARVESH BARDIA,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, RAJNANDGAON

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.299/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sarvesh Bardia Bardia Niwas, Sadar Bazar, Rajnandgaon (C.G.)-491 441 Pan: Aqbpb3485F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

bogus, but interestingly, no adverse inference as regards the interest paid by the assessee to the respective lenders (after deduction of tax at source) had been drawn by him. Be that as it may, we are of a firm conviction that as there is no whisper in the assessment order as to why the aforesaid documents that were filed

M/S TRIMURTHY FINVEST LIMITED,BILASPUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), BILASPUR

In the result, appeal of the assesse company being devoid and bereft of any merit is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

purchase shares of an unknown company. In fact, such a high premium is not commanded even by blue chip quoted companies. It is not a case where angel investors had invested upon being satisfied with the innovativeness and entrepreneurial skills of the management. With the amendment to section 68, applicable w.e.f from AY 2013-13, not only is the assessee

EAST WEST FINVEST INDIA LIMITED,BILASPUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), BILASPR

In the result, appeal of the assessee company being devoid and bereft of any merit is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

purchase shares of an unknown company. In fact, such a high premium is not commanded even by blue chip quoted companies. It is not a case where angel investors had invested upon being satisfied with the innovativeness and entrepreneurial skills of the management. With the amendment to section 68, applicable w.e.f from AY 2013-13, not only is the assessee

M/S PURVI FINVEST LIMITED,BILASPUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1),, BILASPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee company being devoid and bereft of any merit is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

purchase shares of an unknown company. In fact, such a high premium is not commanded even by blue chip quoted companies. It is not a 20 M/s. Purvi Finvest Limited Vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1) case where angel investors had invested upon being satisfied with the innovativeness and entrepreneurial skills of the management. With the amendment to section 68, applicable

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), RAIPUR vs. PSA CONSTRUCTION, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

bogus and not genuine, Assessing Officer was justified in adding amount of purchases towards its income - Held, yes The facts on records extracted from survey and assessment proceedings and is apparent. The apparent is real. The facts and surrounding information on records, and statement disclosed the truth the paid in cash many expenses and there is no agreement with subcontract