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.)

u/s. 147 of the Act in case of the assessee before us. We are of a firm conviction that as both the A.O and the Jt. CIT, Range-1, Raipur, had taken cognizance of the fact that it was a case of a reassessment within the meaning of “Explanation-2(c)(i)” of Section 147 of the Act, and also

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.)

u/s. 147 of the Act in case of the assessee before us. We are of a firm conviction that as both the A.O and the Jt. CIT, Range-1, Raipur, had taken cognizance of the fact that it was a case of a reassessment within the meaning of “Explanation-2(c)(i)” of Section 147 of the Act, and also

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.)

u/s. 147 of the Act in case of the assessee before us. We are of a firm conviction that as both the A.O and the Jt. CIT, Range-1, Raipur, had taken cognizance of the fact that it was a case of a reassessment within the meaning of “Explanation-2(c)(i)” of Section 147 of the Act, and also

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.)

u/s. 147 of the Act in case of the assessee before us. We are of a firm conviction that as both the A.O and the Jt. CIT, Range-1, Raipur, had taken cognizance of the fact that it was a case of a reassessment within the meaning of “Explanation-2(c)(i)” of Section 147 of the Act, and also

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.)

u/s. 147 of the Act in case of the assessee before us. We are of a firm conviction that as both the A.O and the Jt. CIT, Range-1, Raipur, had taken cognizance of the fact that it was a case of a reassessment within the meaning of “Explanation-2(c)(i)” of Section 147 of the Act, and also

SHRI SHRI TARUN PUGALIA JAIN,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(4), RAIPUR (CG)

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 272/Rpr/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Tarun Pugalia Jain Shop No.9, Kamala Super Bazar, Telghani Naka, Station Road, Raipur (C.G). Pan : Aacch4665D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Raipur. ……""यथ" / Respondent

bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.9,53,492/- and thus, inflated his expenditure with a purpose of suppressing his taxable income. In our considered view, though there was material/information with the Assessing Officer on the basis of which he could have arrived at a bonafide belief that the income of the assessee chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, however

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

M/S ASHOK KHANDELWAL,DHAMTARI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 223/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Ashok Khandelwal Tulsi Bhawan, Opp. Nehru Garden, Ratnabandha Road, Dhamtari-493 773 (C.G.) Pan : Aaifa8368F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :14.03.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement :05.04.2022

bogus purchase bills of bitumen emulsion of Rs. 4,86,910/- (supra) from M/s. Baba Basukinath Petrochemicals Ltd, Kolkata, but no addition on the said count was made by the A.O while reassessing the income of the assessee firm vide his order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147

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

M/S. EXOTICS FATS EXIM,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4), RAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of the aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.130/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Exotics Fats Exim 3Rd Floor, C/O. Dayalal Meghji & Co., Dm Plaza, Chhotapara, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aacfe1065H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(4), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

purchase bills of Rs.5,61,050 from the alleged bogus firm (Syndicate Corporation); there is no live link with the alleged unverified information received wherefrom; reopening cannot be resorted to for fishing or roving inquiry on mere suspicion that income chargeable to tax may have escaped assessment; it is not the 'reasons to believe' in the eyes

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. M/S SUNIL SPONGE PVT. LTD., RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.73/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Central Circle)-1, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Sunil Sponge Pvt. Ltd. H. No.11, Jalvihar Colony, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aahcs7999A ……""यथ" / Respondent

purchased the goods from the assessee company at a substantially low price. Also, it was observed by the A.O. that while the assessee company had sold finished goods to various other unrelated parties in the open market at an average sale price of Rs. 16,900.23 per MT, but sold the same to its aforesaid sister concern, viz. M/s Sunil

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)

reassessment u/sl48/ 147 is invalid and is liable to be quashed; relied on Hexaware Technologies Ltd (2024) (Born); Arati Marketing (P) Ltd (2024) (Cal HC); New India Assurance Co Ltd (2023) (Born); Keenara Industries PL (2023) (Guj); Rajeev Bansal (2023) (All HC). 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in• law, notice u/s148 dt.29-7-22 is invalid; issued

MAA CHANDI RICE INDUSTRIES,KURUD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMATRI

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 295/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Maa Chandi Rice Industries, Shop No.7, Bhothali Road, Kurud, Dhamtari-493 663 (C.G.) Pan : Aaofm6916H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Dhamtari (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

reassessment proceedings u/s.147/148 would be invalid and is liable to be quashed. "2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.28,47,000 made u/s.69C on the count of bardana purchase' treating it as bogus/unexplained expenditure; while it is recorded in the books of account

SPECTRUM INFONET PVT. LTD.,RAIGARH vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 33 & 34/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Spectrum Infonet Private Limited 601, South Gajanandpuram Colony, Kotra Road, Raigarh (C.G.)-496001 Pan : Aalcs5656E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal ……""यथ" / Respondent

purchase of the investment which was sold; copy of contract note and bills raised etc. were filed by the assessee company during the course of scrutiny proceeding though the same were specifically asked for by the A.O vide his notice(s) u/s. 142(1) of the Act dated 15.06.2017, 07.09.2017 and 03.10.2017. Also, it was observed

SPECTRUM INFONET PVT. LTD.,RAIGARH vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 33 & 34/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Spectrum Infonet Private Limited 601, South Gajanandpuram Colony, Kotra Road, Raigarh (C.G.)-496001 Pan : Aalcs5656E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal ……""यथ" / Respondent

purchase of the investment which was sold; copy of contract note and bills raised etc. were filed by the assessee company during the course of scrutiny proceeding though the same were specifically asked for by the A.O vide his notice(s) u/s. 142(1) of the Act dated 15.06.2017, 07.09.2017 and 03.10.2017. Also, it was observed

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)

bogus purchases from two parties. ii) In the reopened assessment, as per the settled law, AO could not have made roving enquires in respect of other issues not covered by subject matter of reopening. iii) Scope of reassessment proceedings was thus limited. Within limited scope, if AO did not make other enquiries, order of reassessment could not be termed

INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(2), RAIPUR, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. MUKESH KEDIA , H.NO. SIXTY FOUR

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.400/Rpr/2024 Co No.15/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Mukesh Kedia, House No.64, Gulmohar Park, Laxman Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Apzpk0464Q ……""यथ" / Respondent

bogus purchases has to be brought within ambit of taxation and sustained addition of Rs.77,593/- and deleted the rest of the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Also, the Ld. Sr. DR relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Pr. CIT-5, Mumbai Vs. Kanak Impex (India) Ltd., Income