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

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, 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 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

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

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

43,550/- on account of peak credits of purchases made from bogus concerns.?" 3. "Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition Rs.1,49,79,900/- on account of short yield shown by the assessee in comparison to 3 M/s. P.D Rice Udyog Vs. DCIT

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

43,550/- on account of peak credits of purchases made from bogus concerns.?" 3. "Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition Rs.1,49,79,900/- on account of short yield shown by the assessee in comparison to 3 M/s. P.D Rice Udyog Vs. DCIT

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

MESERS BALAJI RICE INDUSTRIES,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), 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.168/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Balaji Rice Industries, Kharora, Tah-Tilda, Raipur (C.G.)-493 225 Pan : Aacfb4543M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.181/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Balaji Rice Industries, Kharora, Tah-Tilda, Raipur (C.G.)-493 225 Pan : Aacfb4543M ……""यथ" / Respondent

43,22,138/- out of total addition of Rs.1,71,16,444/- by ignoring the fact that these purchases are nothing but bogus purchases managed through bogus bills?" 2. "Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the affirmation on oath in statements recorded

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), RAIPUR vs. MESERS BALAJI RICE 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.168/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Balaji Rice Industries, Kharora, Tah-Tilda, Raipur (C.G.)-493 225 Pan : Aacfb4543M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.181/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Balaji Rice Industries, Kharora, Tah-Tilda, Raipur (C.G.)-493 225 Pan : Aacfb4543M ……""यथ" / Respondent

43,22,138/- out of total addition of Rs.1,71,16,444/- by ignoring the fact that these purchases are nothing but bogus purchases managed through bogus bills?" 2. "Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the affirmation on oath in statements recorded

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

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

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...

43 taxmann.com 269 (Delhi); (j) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mulberry Silk International Ltd. [2012] 19 taxmann.com 31 (Kar.); (k) Commissioner of Income-tax-III v. Nilchem Capital Ltd. [2012] 18 tax mann.com 350 (Guj.); (l) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jay Dee Securities & Finance Ltd. [2013] 32 taxmann.com 91 (Allahabad); (m) Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-II v. Kinetic

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...

43 taxmann.com 269 (Delhi); (j) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mulberry Silk International Ltd. [2012] 19 taxmann.com 31 (Kar.); (k) Commissioner of Income-tax-III v. Nilchem Capital Ltd. [2012] 18 tax mann.com 350 (Guj.); (l) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jay Dee Securities & Finance Ltd. [2013] 32 taxmann.com 91 (Allahabad); (m) Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-II v. Kinetic

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...

43 taxmann.com 269 (Delhi); (j) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mulberry Silk International Ltd. [2012] 19 taxmann.com 31 (Kar.); (k) Commissioner of Income-tax-III v. Nilchem Capital Ltd. [2012] 18 tax mann.com 350 (Guj.); (l) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jay Dee Securities & Finance Ltd. [2013] 32 taxmann.com 91 (Allahabad); (m) Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-II v. Kinetic

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...

43 taxmann.com 269 (Delhi); (j) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mulberry Silk International Ltd. [2012] 19 taxmann.com 31 (Kar.); (k) Commissioner of Income-tax-III v. Nilchem Capital Ltd. [2012] 18 tax mann.com 350 (Guj.); (l) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jay Dee Securities & Finance Ltd. [2013] 32 taxmann.com 91 (Allahabad); (m) Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-II v. Kinetic

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...

43 taxmann.com 269 (Delhi); (j) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mulberry Silk International Ltd. [2012] 19 taxmann.com 31 (Kar.); (k) Commissioner of Income-tax-III v. Nilchem Capital Ltd. [2012] 18 tax mann.com 350 (Guj.); (l) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jay Dee Securities & Finance Ltd. [2013] 32 taxmann.com 91 (Allahabad); (m) Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-II v. Kinetic