PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. GANESH STEEL AND ALLOYS LTD

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Date: 22Nd July, 2025 Appearance: Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. …For Appellant

bogus purchases by holding that application 2 of Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is incorrect in a case

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S PURPLE SUPPLIERS PVT LTD

The appeals are dismissed and the substantial

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)

bogus purchases. It further appears that the Investigation Wing stated that the assessee company has entered into transaction of purchase

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S PURPLE SUPPLIERS PVT LTD

The appeals are dismissed and the substantial

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)

bogus purchases. It further appears that the Investigation Wing stated that the assessee company has entered into transaction of purchase

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 KOLKATA vs. ADVANCE ENGINEERING CORPORATION

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- Hon'Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Date : 9Th June, 2025.

bogus purchases even after taking cognizance of the fact that the respondent assessee has failed to establish the genuineness of the purchases

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S BOSCON LEATHER PRODUCTS PVT LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Dated : 23Rd April, 2025

bogus purchases despite the fact that the respondent assessee has failed to establish the genuineness of the purchases? ii) Whether

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 KOLKATA vs. ADVANCE ENGINEERING CORPORATION

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed and the substantial

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam

bogus purchases even after taking cognizance of the fact that the assessee has failed to establish the genuineness of the actual

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATA vs. ARSHIA GLOBAL TRADECOM PRIVATE LIMITED

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

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

bogus transactions of sales and purchase with various parties and the claim of the assessee that those transactions were genuine

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, KOLKATA vs. KARTICK BOSE

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

Bogus purchases’, was for disallowance @25%, following Gujarat High Court decision in case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. Vs. CIT, (2015) 58 taxmann.com

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9, KOLKATA vs. SANDIP KUMAR TEKRIWAL HUF

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak Date : 13Th July, 2022 Appearance : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. ...For The Appellant In Item No.23. Mr. Prithu Dudharia, Adv …For The Appellant In Item No.22. Mr. S. Roy Chowdhury, Adv. …For The Appellant In Item No.24. Ms. Swapna Das, Mr. Siddhartha Das, Advs. ….For Respondents. The Court : This Appeal By The Revenue Filed Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [The Act, For Brevity] Is Directed Against The Common Order Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata In Ita No.1135/Kol/2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Question Of Law For Consideration. I) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Itat Is Right In Law To Ignore The Fact That Purchase Are Bogus As Per The Finding Of Investigation Wring Of The Department & The Assessing Authority ?

purchase are bogus as per the finding of investigation wring of the Department and the assessing authority ? 2 ii) Whether

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central 2, Kolkata vs. MS A P Fashion Pvt Ltd

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ,HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

purchases for different assessment years from different parties as bogus including the purchases made by the assessee from AVPL in FY 2017-18. However

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S ZULU MERCHANDISE PVT LTD

The appeal is allowed the order passed by

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)

purchased by the assessee were listed in the list of “bogus capital loss claims”. The information which the assessing officer

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S ITC LTD

Bench: The Learned Tribunal – One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Which Have Been Disposed Of By A Common Order, Impugned In This Appeal. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration :

bogus purchases, liquidated damages, income tax interest expense, commission to non-executive directors, disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S BRIDGE AND BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO PVT LTD

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Dated : November 28, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Om Narayan Rai, Adv. Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. …For Appellant The Court :- We Have Heard Learned Standing Counsel For The Appellant Mr. Prithu Dudhoria & Mr. Om Narayan Rai. Notice On The Respondent Has Been Served & The Same Has Returned With The Postal Endorsement “Unclaimed” Which Is Deemed To Be Proper Service. We Have Perused Affidavit Filed In Support Of The Petition & Found Sufficient Cause Has Been Shown For Not Being Able To Prefer The Appeal Within The Period Of Limitation. Hence, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned. The Petition Stands Allowed.

bogus purchase and expense by accepting accommodation entries which were brought on record by the Assessing Officer and the Learned

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S BRIDGE AND BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO PVT LTD

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Dated : November 28, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. …For Appellant The Court :- We Have Heard Learned Standing Counsel For The Appellant Mr. Prithu Dudhoria. Notice On The Respondent Has Been Served & The Same Has Been Returned With The Postal Endorsement “Unclaimed” Which Is Deemed To Be Proper Service. We Have Perused Affidavit Filed In Support Of The Petition & Found Sufficient Cause Has Been Shown For Not Being Able To Prefer The Appeal Within The Period Of Limitation. Hence, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned. The Petition Stands Allowed. This Appeal Has Been Filed Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated December 23, 2021 Passed

bogus purchase and expense by accepting accommodation entries which were brought on record by the Assessing Officer and the Learned

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9, KOLKATA vs. BINOD KUMAR TEKRIWAL HUF

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak Date : 13Th July, 2022 Appearance : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. ...For The Appellant In Item No.23. Mr. Prithu Dudharia, Adv …For The Appellant In Item No.22. Mr. S. Roy Chowdhury, Adv. …For The Appellant In Item No.24. Ms. Swapna Das, Mr. Siddhartha Das, Advs. ….For Respondents. The Court : This Appeal By The Revenue Filed Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [The Act, For Brevity] Is Directed Against The Common Order Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata In Ita No.1134/Kol/2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Question Of Law For Consideration. I) Whether The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Erred In Law In Not Upholding The Order Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Much As The Assessing Officer Completed An

bogus purchase of shares which was directed by the DGIT (Investigation), Mumbai through the DIT(Investigation), West Bengal & Sikkim ? ii) Whether

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S JAJODIA FINANCE LIMITED

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam

bogus entry for purchase and sale of investment, share application etc. against commission on total transaction amount. With this fact

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. R C SUPPLIERS PVT LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

Bench: :

purchase of the said scrip by the assessee was managed and fabricated to claim bogus loss ? We have heard Mr. Soumen

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 1 KOLKATA vs. MEGAPODE VYAPAR PVT LTD

The appeal is dismissed, and the stay petition

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ,HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

purchase and sale 2 of penny stocks i.e. BLUE CIRCLE & CCL INTERNATIONAL featuring in the list of ‘Bogus Capital Loss