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.)

43,295 Qntls. of sales (out of total sales for the year) as bogus sales for which accommodation entries were provided by the assessee and had worked out an addition @ Rs.5/- per Qntl. aggregating to Rs.7,16,475/-, therefore, reopening of his case by observing that the assessee had not made genuine purchases of goods but only procured bogus purchase

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.)

43,295 Qntls. of sales (out of total sales for the year) as bogus sales for which accommodation entries were provided by the assessee and had worked out an addition @ Rs.5/- per Qntl. aggregating to Rs.7,16,475/-, therefore, reopening of his case by observing that the assessee had not made genuine purchases of goods but only procured bogus purchase

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.)

43,295 Qntls. of sales (out of total sales for the year) as bogus sales for which accommodation entries were provided by the assessee and had worked out an addition @ Rs.5/- per Qntl. aggregating to Rs.7,16,475/-, therefore, reopening of his case by observing that the assessee had not made genuine purchases of goods but only procured bogus purchase

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.)

43,295 Qntls. of sales (out of total sales for the year) as bogus sales for which accommodation entries were provided by the assessee and had worked out an addition @ Rs.5/- per Qntl. aggregating to Rs.7,16,475/-, therefore, reopening of his case by observing that the assessee had not made genuine purchases of goods but only procured bogus purchase

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.)

43,295 Qntls. of sales (out of total sales for the year) as bogus sales for which accommodation entries were provided by the assessee and had worked out an addition @ Rs.5/- per Qntl. aggregating to Rs.7,16,475/-, therefore, reopening of his case by observing that the assessee had not made genuine purchases of goods but only procured bogus purchase

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)

bogus purchase under section 69C of the Act, thereby determining the assessee's income at Rs. 5,43,80,670/-. 4. An appeal

RAM CHAND PANJWANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 151/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ram Chand Panjwani M/S. Gurunanak Rice Mill, Vill : Tulshi, P.O. Tilda, Neora, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Afbpp5595D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

bogus purchases and made a consequential addition of Rs.20,68,750/- to the assessee’s returned income. Apart from that the A.O had also made two additions viz. (i) Rs.1,00,000/- on account of freight expenses and hamali expenses as against claimed by the assessee of 6 Ram Chand Panjwani Vs. ITO-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) Rs.15

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

43(5)] means a transaction in which a contract for the purchase or sale of any commodity, including stocks and shares, is periodically and ultimately settled, otherwise than by the actual delivery or transfer of the commodity or scrips. If a contract for purchase/sale of shares, stock or commodity is ultimately settled otherwise than by actual delivery or transfer

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

43(5)] means a transaction in which a contract for the purchase or sale of any commodity, including stocks and shares, is periodically and ultimately settled, otherwise than by the actual delivery or transfer of the commodity or scrips. If a contract for purchase/sale of shares, stock or commodity is ultimately settled otherwise than by actual delivery or transfer

FAKIR CHAND AGRAWAL,BILASPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 61/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Fakir Chand Agrawal Plot No. 22 & 23, Anjani Rani Durgavati, Industrial Area, Pendra Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) Pan : Aezpa7821C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Raipur-1. ……""यथ" / Respondent

bogus purchases of Rs.1,04,85,751/- as an unexplained expenditure incurred by the assessee u/s.69C of the Act and computed the consequential tax liability as per provisions of Section 4 Fakir Chand Agrawal Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 115BBE of the Act, therefore, having failed to do so his order passed u/s.143(3) dated 25.12.2019 was erroneous

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

GURMUKH DAS GANGWANI, BHATAPARA,BHATAPARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-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 Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 246/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Gurmukh Das Gangwani House No.199, Gurunanak Ward, Bhatapara (C.G.)-493 118 Pan : Ainpg1689A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

bogus purchases and worked out an addition of Rs.20,43,750/- (25% of Rs.81,75,000/-). As the assessee had already declared Rs.10,67,300/- under the IDS 2016, therefore, the A.O restricted the addition qua the differential amount of Rs.9,76,450/- [Rs.20,43,750/- (-) Rs.10,67,300/-]. Accordingly, the A.O vide his order passed u/s.143(3) dated

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), RAIPUR vs. KANHA GRAIN PROCESS, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryassessment Year : 2015-16 Ito, Ward 1(2), Raipur Kanha Grain Process Vs. Station Road, Tilda Neora, Raipur – 493114 Pan: Aaifk3222G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal Department By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-01-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

bogus purchases. 4. Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of re-assessment proceedings. The Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC held that the Additional Solicitor General of India, on behalf of the Revenue agreed that the notice issued for the A.Y. 2015-16, between

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 :

bogus and new notes are genuine. h. AO has accepted cash sales of post demonetization period, i.e., January to March 2017. AO is blowing heat and cold in the same breath according to his convenience. i. Assessee has given a reasonable explanation according to his trade practice and therefore, it cannot be rejected unless AO brings on record something contrary

ADIM JATI SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT, DHORRA,GARIYABAND vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 25/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Adim Jati Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Dhorra Ground Floor, Main Road Dhorra, Gariyaband(C.G)-493889 Pan: Aabaa7991C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle 1(1) Revenue Building, Civil Lines Raipur (C.G.)-492001 ……""यथ" / Respondent

section which kindly be allowed. 3 5. That under the facts and the law the Ld.CIT (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi further erred in confirming the rejection of claim of the appellant for deduction of commission income earned at Rs. 2,73,661 u/s. 80P(2). Prayed that the above income is deductible u/s. 80P(2). 6.That Under the facts

SARTHAK ISPAT PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A No. 14 & Ita Nos. 513, 514, 515, 516 & 517/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

Section 114 of the Evidence Act had observed that in case where the official act had been done in accordance with official procedure, then it would lead to presumption that due diligence was followed. 7.6 As the facts involved in the present case remains the same as were there before the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Hitesh

SARTHAK ISPAT PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A No. 14 & Ita Nos. 513, 514, 515, 516 & 517/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

Section 114 of the Evidence Act had observed that in case where the official act had been done in accordance with official procedure, then it would lead to presumption that due diligence was followed. 7.6 As the facts involved in the present case remains the same as were there before the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Hitesh

SARTHAK ISPAT PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A No. 14 & Ita Nos. 513, 514, 515, 516 & 517/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

Section 114 of the Evidence Act had observed that in case where the official act had been done in accordance with official procedure, then it would lead to presumption that due diligence was followed. 7.6 As the facts involved in the present case remains the same as were there before the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Hitesh

SARTHAK ISPAT PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A No. 14 & Ita Nos. 513, 514, 515, 516 & 517/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

Section 114 of the Evidence Act had observed that in case where the official act had been done in accordance with official procedure, then it would lead to presumption that due diligence was followed. 7.6 As the facts involved in the present case remains the same as were there before the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Hitesh