ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), BHILAI vs. MESERS ABIS POULTRY PRIVATE LIMITED, RAJNANDGAON

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.233 & 234/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010 & 2011-2012) Acit-2(1), Bhilai Vs M/S Abis Poultry Private Limited, Baldeo Bag, Rajnandgaon Pan No. :Aaeca 87411 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

1) and in proviso first and second. 4.3 In the present case of the assesse no incriminating documents were found during the course of search relating to expenses, Further during the assessment proceeding the A.O. has never furnished any incriminating document which suggest that the appellant has inflated any such expenses. 4.4 It is therefore apparent that the addition

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), BHILAI vs. MESERS ABIS POULTRY PRIVATE LIMITED, RAJNANDGAON

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.233 & 234/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010 & 2011-2012) Acit-2(1), Bhilai Vs M/S Abis Poultry Private Limited, Baldeo Bag, Rajnandgaon Pan No. :Aaeca 87411 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

1) and in proviso first and second. 4.3 In the present case of the assesse no incriminating documents were found during the course of search relating to expenses, Further during the assessment proceeding the A.O. has never furnished any incriminating document which suggest that the appellant has inflated any such expenses. 4.4 It is therefore apparent that the addition

MESERS TOPWORTH STEELS AND POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia, Hon'Ble & Shrin.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble

153A r.w.s. 143 of the Act and total income was assessed at Rs. 4,93,82,49,811/-. Later on, the said assessment order was scrutinized by the Pr.CIT u/sec. 263 of the Act and the same was held as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and consequently the AO was directed to re-frame the assessment

MESERS TOPWORTH STEELS AND POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia, Hon'Ble & Shrin.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble

153A r.w.s. 143 of the Act and total income was assessed at Rs. 4,93,82,49,811/-. Later on, the said assessment order was scrutinized by the Pr.CIT u/sec. 263 of the Act and the same was held as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and consequently the AO was directed to re-frame the assessment

MESERS TOPWORTH STEELS AND POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia, Hon'Ble & Shrin.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble

153A r.w.s. 143 of the Act and total income was assessed at Rs. 4,93,82,49,811/-. Later on, the said assessment order was scrutinized by the Pr.CIT u/sec. 263 of the Act and the same was held as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and consequently the AO was directed to re-frame the assessment

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. DEVI IRON & POWER PVT LIMITED, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 267 & 268/Rpr/2014 Co Nos. 30 & 31/Rpr/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Devi Iron & Power Pvt. Ltd. Mahamaya Tower, 3Rd & 4Th Floor, In Front Of Anupam Nagar, Near Varun Honda, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaeca3704G ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.101/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-2, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Devi Iron & Power Pvt. Ltd. B-08-09, Sector-C, Industrial Area, Urla, Sarora, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aabcd9753D ……""यथ" / Respondent Co Nos.30 & 31/Rpr/2015

153A of the Act could be pressed into service, the Ld. AR failed to come forth with any reply. 36. We have given a thoughtful consideration and are unable to accept the aforesaid claim of the assessee, i.e., in absence of any incriminating material/document having been found in the course of search proceedings, no addition could have been made

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,RAIPUR, RAIPUR (CG) vs. M/S DEVI IRON & POWER PVT LTD., RAIPUR, RAIPUR (CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 267 & 268/Rpr/2014 Co Nos. 30 & 31/Rpr/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Devi Iron & Power Pvt. Ltd. Mahamaya Tower, 3Rd & 4Th Floor, In Front Of Anupam Nagar, Near Varun Honda, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaeca3704G ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.101/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-2, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Devi Iron & Power Pvt. Ltd. B-08-09, Sector-C, Industrial Area, Urla, Sarora, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aabcd9753D ……""यथ" / Respondent Co Nos.30 & 31/Rpr/2015

153A of the Act could be pressed into service, the Ld. AR failed to come forth with any reply. 36. We have given a thoughtful consideration and are unable to accept the aforesaid claim of the assessee, i.e., in absence of any incriminating material/document having been found in the course of search proceedings, no addition could have been made

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. DEVI IRON & POWER LIMITED, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 267 & 268/Rpr/2014 Co Nos. 30 & 31/Rpr/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Devi Iron & Power Pvt. Ltd. Mahamaya Tower, 3Rd & 4Th Floor, In Front Of Anupam Nagar, Near Varun Honda, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaeca3704G ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.101/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-2, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Devi Iron & Power Pvt. Ltd. B-08-09, Sector-C, Industrial Area, Urla, Sarora, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aabcd9753D ……""यथ" / Respondent Co Nos.30 & 31/Rpr/2015

153A of the Act could be pressed into service, the Ld. AR failed to come forth with any reply. 36. We have given a thoughtful consideration and are unable to accept the aforesaid claim of the assessee, i.e., in absence of any incriminating material/document having been found in the course of search proceedings, no addition could have been made

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL)-2, RAIPUR vs. M/S RADHESHYAM AGRAWAL , RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaiआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 42/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Central)-2, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Radheshyam Agarwal L-24, Avanti Vihar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aacfr8916J ……""यथ" / Respondent

153A for the AYs 2006-07 to 2012-13 and Notice u/s 143(2) for AY 2013-14 were issued to the assessee. It was observed by the AO that the assessee a/w three other persons of his group had thereafter in order to settle their income-tax matters for the AYs 2006-07 to 2012-13 approached the Income

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.)

depreciation was to be mentioned, the Jt. CIT, Range-1, Raipur had mentioned as “NA’. For the sake of clarity, the approval granted by the Jt.CIT, Range-1, Raipur is culled out as under: 19. We have given thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid contentions of the Ld. AR and find no substance in the same. On a careful perusal

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.)

depreciation was to be mentioned, the Jt. CIT, Range-1, Raipur had mentioned as “NA’. For the sake of clarity, the approval granted by the Jt.CIT, Range-1, Raipur is culled out as under: 19. We have given thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid contentions of the Ld. AR and find no substance in the same. On a careful perusal

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.)

depreciation was to be mentioned, the Jt. CIT, Range-1, Raipur had mentioned as “NA’. For the sake of clarity, the approval granted by the Jt.CIT, Range-1, Raipur is culled out as under: 19. We have given thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid contentions of the Ld. AR and find no substance in the same. On a careful perusal

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.)

depreciation was to be mentioned, the Jt. CIT, Range-1, Raipur had mentioned as “NA’. For the sake of clarity, the approval granted by the Jt.CIT, Range-1, Raipur is culled out as under: 19. We have given thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid contentions of the Ld. AR and find no substance in the same. On a careful perusal

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.)

depreciation was to be mentioned, the Jt. CIT, Range-1, Raipur had mentioned as “NA’. For the sake of clarity, the approval granted by the Jt.CIT, Range-1, Raipur is culled out as under: 19. We have given thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid contentions of the Ld. AR and find no substance in the same. On a careful perusal

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.)

depreciation was to be mentioned, the Jt. CIT, Range-1, Raipur had mentioned as “NA’. For the sake of clarity, the approval granted by the Jt.CIT, Range-1, Raipur is culled out as under: 19. We have given thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid contentions of the Ld. AR and find no substance in the same. On a careful perusal

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. MAHAMAYA STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 62/Rpr/2018) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14)

153A r.w.s. 143(3) for the search period i.e. AY 2006-07 to 2012-13. Importantly even in the assessment order pertaining to search period there is no reference of any seized material or any other documentary evidences to establish the fact that the appellant had indulged in unaccounted production and unaccounted sales. The additions were made mainly