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.)

37,70,000/- 4,71,250/- 11.12.2012 Chawal Udyog, Raipur 6. M/s. Hardha Agency 77,60,000/- 5,35,000/- 27.11.2012 Total 14,41,32,250/- 7 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani Vs. ACIT-1(1), Raipur ITA Nos. 122 to 124/RPR/2024 ITA Nos. 135, 136 & 138/RPR/2024 6. The A.O observed that a survey operation u/s.133A of the Act was conducted

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.)

37,70,000/- 4,71,250/- 11.12.2012 Chawal Udyog, Raipur 6. M/s. Hardha Agency 77,60,000/- 5,35,000/- 27.11.2012 Total 14,41,32,250/- 7 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani Vs. ACIT-1(1), Raipur ITA Nos. 122 to 124/RPR/2024 ITA Nos. 135, 136 & 138/RPR/2024 6. The A.O observed that a survey operation u/s.133A of the Act was conducted

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.)

37,70,000/- 4,71,250/- 11.12.2012 Chawal Udyog, Raipur 6. M/s. Hardha Agency 77,60,000/- 5,35,000/- 27.11.2012 Total 14,41,32,250/- 7 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani Vs. ACIT-1(1), Raipur ITA Nos. 122 to 124/RPR/2024 ITA Nos. 135, 136 & 138/RPR/2024 6. The A.O observed that a survey operation u/s.133A of the Act was conducted

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.)

37,70,000/- 4,71,250/- 11.12.2012 Chawal Udyog, Raipur 6. M/s. Hardha Agency 77,60,000/- 5,35,000/- 27.11.2012 Total 14,41,32,250/- 7 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani Vs. ACIT-1(1), Raipur ITA Nos. 122 to 124/RPR/2024 ITA Nos. 135, 136 & 138/RPR/2024 6. The A.O observed that a survey operation u/s.133A of the Act was conducted

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.)

37,70,000/- 4,71,250/- 11.12.2012 Chawal Udyog, Raipur 6. M/s. Hardha Agency 77,60,000/- 5,35,000/- 27.11.2012 Total 14,41,32,250/- 7 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani Vs. ACIT-1(1), Raipur ITA Nos. 122 to 124/RPR/2024 ITA Nos. 135, 136 & 138/RPR/2024 6. The A.O observed that a survey operation u/s.133A of the Act was conducted

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)

37. The learned counsel for the respondent-assessee has not made any submissions on the provisions of Section 69C of the Act, although the same were 14 DCIT-1(1) vs. Shanta Techno Private Limited explicitly framed in the admission order and relied upon by the counsel for the appellant-revenue in the course of the hearing. Therefore, the only

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

37,29,238/- out of total addition of Rs.5,59,67,956/- ignoring the fact that these purchases are nothing but bogus purchases managed through bogus bills?" 2. "Whether on points of law and on fact & circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the affirmation on oath in statements recorded

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

37,29,238/- out of total addition of Rs.5,59,67,956/- ignoring the fact that these purchases are nothing but bogus purchases managed through bogus bills?" 2. "Whether on points of law and on fact & circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the affirmation on oath in statements recorded

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.

37,500/- 4. Survey operations u/s 133A were conducted by the Jt. CIT Range-1 Raipur in the business premises of Shri Sanjay Sharma, Hanuman Market, Raipur and Shri Kamlesh Kesharwani, Canvassing Agent, Ramsagarpara, Raipur and three Rice millers of Tilda Distst. Raipur on 15/03/2016. The point of inquiry was of bogus bills that were required through the brokers

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

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(1), RAIPUR (CG) vs. SHRI NAND KISHORE AGRAWAL, RAIPUR (CG)

The appeal of the Revenue is DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.235/Rpr/2016 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax- 4(1), Raipur (C.G.) . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Nand Kishore Agrawal, Moti Nagar, Shiv Steel, Boria Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Ajdpa4766H . . . . . . .प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri R. B. Doshi Revenue By : Shri Piyush Tripathi सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 24/03/2023 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Challenges The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Raipur [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 29/02/2016 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] Deleting The Addition Carried Out By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Raipur [For Short “Ao”] Vide Assessment Order Dt. 27/03/2014 Passed U/S 143(3) By For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2011-12. Itat-Raipur Page 1 Of 5

bogus, and in the absence of any deprecative material vis-à-vis findings establishing the purchases as non-genuine we find no reasons to subscribe the views of the Ld. AO. ITAT-Raipur Page 4 of 5 Nand Kishore Agrawal, 7. Since the purchase price paid by the assessee towards stock-in-trade possesses all the characteristics enumerated in section

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-

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. AJAY GOLECHAA, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.454/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

bogus exemption under section 10(38) of the Act on account of long-term capital gains arising from transactions in penny stock. 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in holding that the surrender of income by the assessee discharges him from the penal consequences under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), RAIPUR vs. SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD SINGHANIA, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.228/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Jagdish Prasad Singhania, 14, Singhania Sadan Main Road, Bazarpara, Ward-Tilda, Neora, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Ajkps0565M ……""यथ" / Respondent

purchased diesel, it was observed by the A.O that the 4 ITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur Vs. Shri Jagdish Prasad Singhania amount of Rs.1,56,58,506/- was incurred by the assessee towards diesel expenses on vehicles other than those owned by him, as under: S. No. Name of the Petrol Pump Diesel expenses claimed (other than assessee’s vehicle

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