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.)

69,10,000/- 4,65,000/- 01.09.2012 Raipur 4. M/s. Sakshi Gopal 22,12,500/- 3,68,750/- 10.12.2012 Corporation, Raipur 5. M/s. Shiv Shankar 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

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.)

69,10,000/- 4,65,000/- 01.09.2012 Raipur 4. M/s. Sakshi Gopal 22,12,500/- 3,68,750/- 10.12.2012 Corporation, Raipur 5. M/s. Shiv Shankar 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

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.)

69,10,000/- 4,65,000/- 01.09.2012 Raipur 4. M/s. Sakshi Gopal 22,12,500/- 3,68,750/- 10.12.2012 Corporation, Raipur 5. M/s. Shiv Shankar 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

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.)

69,10,000/- 4,65,000/- 01.09.2012 Raipur 4. M/s. Sakshi Gopal 22,12,500/- 3,68,750/- 10.12.2012 Corporation, Raipur 5. M/s. Shiv Shankar 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

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.)

69,10,000/- 4,65,000/- 01.09.2012 Raipur 4. M/s. Sakshi Gopal 22,12,500/- 3,68,750/- 10.12.2012 Corporation, Raipur 5. M/s. Shiv Shankar 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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1), RAIPUR vs. TIRUPATI BALAJI FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.657/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

69,500/- @25% of bogus purchases made from M/s. Shrikand Agrotech of Rs.1,30,78,000/-. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee went on appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC who had partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes by observing as follows: “6.2 I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. The Assessing Officer had disallowed

SHANTI PARBOILING INDUSTRIES,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.99/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17

section 145(3) of the I.T. Act and in rejecting the books of Accounts of the appellant on the basis of statement recorded by Jt. CIT, Range -1 during a survey operation u/s.133A in the case of third /unrelated/unconnected persons and by using such statements behind the back of the Appellant, without giving any opportunity of rebutting and cross-examining

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

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

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

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

69,304/- as per Form 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

ANIL KUMAR JAIN,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.584 & 585/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Anil Kumar Jain 34, Maruti Life Style, Ravi Shankar University, S.O, Raipur-492 010 Pan: Ahypj7657H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Bilaspur (C.G.)

bogus or inflated bills. 26. We, hereby, also take note of the observations made by the ITAT in its order dated 22.10.2018 in Paragraph 25, wherein, while affirming the deletion of additions vide order of the CIT (A), it was held as under:- 8 Anil Kumar Jain Vs. ACIT (Central), Bilaspur ITA Nos.584 & 585/RPR/2025 “25. We find although the Assessing

ANIL KUMAR JAIN,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.584 & 585/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Anil Kumar Jain 34, Maruti Life Style, Ravi Shankar University, S.O, Raipur-492 010 Pan: Ahypj7657H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Bilaspur (C.G.)

bogus or inflated bills. 26. We, hereby, also take note of the observations made by the ITAT in its order dated 22.10.2018 in Paragraph 25, wherein, while affirming the deletion of additions vide order of the CIT (A), it was held as under:- 8 Anil Kumar Jain Vs. ACIT (Central), Bilaspur ITA Nos.584 & 585/RPR/2025 “25. We find although the Assessing

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)

purchase to the tune of Rs.2,29,87,000/-, from Shri Deepak Nanjyani during FY 2014-15. 4. Based on aforesaid information, notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act was issued to the assessee, in response to which, the assessee had not filed his submissions. Thereafter, an order u/s.148A(d) of the Act was passed on 26.07.2022 and notice u/s.148

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

69,62,479/- Disallowance u/s 40A(3)-para-10 & 2,71,38,940/- 11 Disallowance of bonus bogus 19,95,450/- claimed-para-12 Disallowance claim of bad debts- 14,28,899/- para-13 Bogus claim of material purchase- 4,04,56,014/- para-14 Bogus cash credit u/s.68-para-15 4,82,814/- Unexplained cash credit-para

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHILAI vs. MESERS METEX ENGINEERS, BHILAI

In the result Ground No 8 of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.238/Rpr/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-2016) M/S Metex Engineers, Vs Ito, Ward-1(2), Bhilai Shop No.10-11, Ganesh Complex, Shakti Vihar, Risali Bhilai, Durg Pan No. :Aawfm 8852 G & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.247/Rpr/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Ito, Ward-1(2), Bhilai Vs M/S Metex Engineers, Shop No.10-11, Ganesh Complex, Shakti Vihar, Risali Bhilai, Durg Pan No. :Aawfm 8852 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.B.Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V.K.Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 24/04/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

bogus without making any enquiries with the concerned payees. The fact that the similar payment of commission, which was a practice of the trade of the assessee, was allowed by the department in the immediately succeeding assessment years makes the assessee’s contention more believable. No specific details to dislodge the contention of the assessee were brought to our knowledge

MESERS METEX ENGINEERS,BHILAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHILAI

In the result Ground No 8 of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.238/Rpr/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-2016) M/S Metex Engineers, Vs Ito, Ward-1(2), Bhilai Shop No.10-11, Ganesh Complex, Shakti Vihar, Risali Bhilai, Durg Pan No. :Aawfm 8852 G & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.247/Rpr/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Ito, Ward-1(2), Bhilai Vs M/S Metex Engineers, Shop No.10-11, Ganesh Complex, Shakti Vihar, Risali Bhilai, Durg Pan No. :Aawfm 8852 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.B.Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V.K.Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 24/04/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

bogus without making any enquiries with the concerned payees. The fact that the similar payment of commission, which was a practice of the trade of the assessee, was allowed by the department in the immediately succeeding assessment years makes the assessee’s contention more believable. No specific details to dislodge the contention of the assessee were brought to our knowledge