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)

reassessment proceedings completed invoking the provisions of section 147 is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 9. Per contra, Dr. Priyanka Patel, Ld. Sr. DR representing the revenue submitted that the assessment were rightly completed under the provisions of section 147 of the Act, to support such contention she read the facts of case from the analysis

KUSH KEDIA vs. A.C.I.T. 2(1), RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 105 & 106/Rpr/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2005-06 Kush Kedia Kedia Bhawan, Mandi Road, Balodabazar.Dist. Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aklpk5127B .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur. (C.G.) ……""यथ" /Respondent

u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.153C of the Act. On being confronted with the aforesaid claim of the assessee’s counsel the Ld. DR could not rebut the same. It is in the backdrop of the aforesaid factual matrix that we shall herein proceed with and deal with the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the Assessing Officer for framing the assessment

KUSH KEDIA vs. A.C.I.T. 2(1), RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 105 & 106/Rpr/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2005-06 Kush Kedia Kedia Bhawan, Mandi Road, Balodabazar.Dist. Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aklpk5127B .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur. (C.G.) ……""यथ" /Respondent

u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.153C of the Act. On being confronted with the aforesaid claim of the assessee’s counsel the Ld. DR could not rebut the same. It is in the backdrop of the aforesaid factual matrix that we shall herein proceed with and deal with the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the Assessing Officer for framing the assessment

MESERS BHILAI CEMENT,BHILAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BHILAI

In the result the grounds No

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

u/s 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the basis of inferences and incorrect findings on facts and without fulfilling conditions stipulated in said section 4. The ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the entire addition of Rs. 55,05,043/- while in similarly situated case of Shri Imran Charania, Bhilai, vide order dated 30/09/2019

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:

147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 23.05.2023 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,27,01,710/- by making addition of Rs.1,19,00,000/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act on account of bogus purchases. 4. Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity

KAMLESH KUKREJA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryassessment Year : 2016-17 Kamlesh Kukreja Ito, Ward-1(1), Raipur Prop. Anmol Industries, Vs. Surajpura Road, Bhatapara, Raipur – 493118 Ahvpk6618C (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:

69C is unjustified & is liable to be deleted; Ashok Kumar Rungta (2024) (Bom HC); Nitin Ramdeoji Lohia (2022) (Bom HC)." Gr.No.4: "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.2,59,23,992 by applying NK Proteins (2017) (SC) wherein suppression in production of 'bye-product

INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISALI, BHILAI vs. AMIT GAUTAM, RAJNANDGAON

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 566/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, dated 21.03.2023 passed by Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (in short “Ld. AO”). 2 ITO Vs. Amit Gautam 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the department are as under: (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) was justified in deleting

VINOD KUMAR KESHARWANI, BHATAPARA,BHATAPARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.80/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Vinod Kumar Keshwani Vinod Dal Mill, Village: Khokhali, Bhatapara (C.G.)-493 118 Pan: Aewpk4399C

69C. The addition made by the AO is illegal, arbitrary, baseless and not justified. 2. The notice issued u/s.148 and consequent reassessment order passed by AO is illegal inasmuch as the sanction u/s. 151 from specified authority is not as per law and without jurisdiction. 3. The initiation of re-assessment proceedings and issue of notice u/s

SOURABH AGRAWAL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.735/Rpr/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2019-20 Sourabh Agrawal, Prop. Sawaria Traders, Shop No.217, Samta Colony, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Appa0229M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

147 r.w.s. 148A of the Act on the basis of information shared with the AO through ITBA as per the Risk Management Strategy formulated by the CBDT, according to which, the assessee had made cash payment of Rs.25,00,000/- to Shree Shyam Sales Corporation, but the source of the said cash payment was not explained. Notice u/s 148 r.w.s