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 of goods from Sancheti during the three assessment years and this led to issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act for reopening

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are allowed and the

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak Date : 15Th July, 2022. Appearance :- Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ….For Appellant

reopened u/s 147 of the Act, on 30/03/2015 on the basis of incriminating information received by the AO. In the said assessment order it was established that expenditure worth Rs.54,14,476/-, claimed by you as purchase, was bogus

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9 KOLKATA vs. MRS PREMLATA TEKRIWAL

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are

Bench: This Court In Itat/27/2022, Itat/32/2022 And

reopened u/s 147 of the Act, on 30/03/2015 on the basis of incriminating information received by the AO. In the said assessment order it was established that expenditure worth 4 Rs.54,14,476/-, claimed by you as purchase, was bogus

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. GILLANDERS ARBUTHNOT AND CO LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- Hon'Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak Date : 8Th July, 2025.

bogus in nature? c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal was justified in law to quash the reassessment proceeding without appreciating and considering the fact that the assessee had delved into fictitious and suspicious transaction failing thereby to establish the genuineness of the transaction? We have heard Mr. Amit Sharma, learned standing

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

reopened under Section 147 of the Act on the ground of bogus billing in the guise of purchases to the tune of Rs.38,75,000/- from M/s. Chakradhari Industries. The assessee responded to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act and filed their return of income. The re-assessment

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 thereby giving rise to the vice of perversity in the decision making process.” We have heard Mr. Amit Sharma, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. Ramesh Kumar Patodia, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. 3 The assessee preferred the appeal before the learned Tribunal challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S ALOSHA MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED

Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- Hon'Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Date : 16Th June, 2025.

bogus’ which is found in paragraph 2 of the reasons for reopening should have been used after independently considering the assessee’s return of income and other details. This is required to be done because before issuing notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessing officer must have either reasons to believe by reason of omission or failure

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9 KOLKATA vs. P L GOENKA HUF

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

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

bogus short term capital gains and that it is incumbent upon the assessing officer after receiving information from the investigation wing, he should have examined the return filed by the assessee and the information vis-à-vis the computation of income and then forms an opinion that income has escaped assessment to tax. The Tribunal held that the assessing officer

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 KOLKATA vs. M/S B L TAK AND SONS HUF

The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the learned Tribunal is set aside 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 long term capital loss. Further, the assessing officer on facts found that the market sources revealed that accommodation entries are normally given at brokerage charge of @ 0.2% to 0.5% of the amount involved. Accordingly, the assessing officer held that the observations of expenditure remained unexplained and added back the same to the total income of the assessee under section

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MUKESH SARAOGI (HUF)

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

assessing officer/CIT. To support such contention reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Odeon Builders Private Limited 59. 28. The next argument of the learned senior counsel is that on the grounds mentioned by the Commissioner in the show cause notice, power under Section 263 could not have been

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12, KOLKATA vs. MUKTA AGARWAL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

assessing officer/CIT. To support such contention reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Odeon Builders Private Limited 59. 28. The next argument of the learned senior counsel is that on the grounds mentioned by the Commissioner in the show cause notice, power under Section 263 could not have been

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5,KOLKATA vs. SWATI BAJAJ

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

assessing officer/CIT. To support such contention reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Odeon Builders Private Limited 59. 28. The next argument of the learned senior counsel is that on the grounds mentioned by the Commissioner in the show cause notice, power under Section 263 could not have been

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,BURDWAN vs. BIJAYA TAH

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

assessing officer/CIT. To support such contention reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Odeon Builders Private Limited 59. 28. The next argument of the learned senior counsel is that on the grounds mentioned by the Commissioner in the show cause notice, power under Section 263 could not have been

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SILIGURI vs. PRAKASHO DEVI SARIA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

assessing officer/CIT. To support such contention reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Odeon Builders Private Limited 59. 28. The next argument of the learned senior counsel is that on the grounds mentioned by the Commissioner in the show cause notice, power under Section 263 could not have been

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9, KOLKATA vs. GITESH TIKMANI

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

assessing officer/CIT. To support such contention reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Odeon Builders Private Limited 59. 28. The next argument of the learned senior counsel is that on the grounds mentioned by the Commissioner in the show cause notice, power under Section 263 could not have been

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, KOLKATA vs. KRISHNA KUMAR PARSURAMKA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

assessing officer/CIT. To support such contention reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Odeon Builders Private Limited 59. 28. The next argument of the learned senior counsel is that on the grounds mentioned by the Commissioner in the show cause notice, power under Section 263 could not have been

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA vs. POOJA JHUNJHUNWALA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

assessing officer/CIT. To support such contention reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Odeon Builders Private Limited 59. 28. The next argument of the learned senior counsel is that on the grounds mentioned by the Commissioner in the show cause notice, power under Section 263 could not have been

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL -1, KOLKATA vs. SURAJ SAHANA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

assessing officer/CIT. To support such contention reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Odeon Builders Private Limited 59. 28. The next argument of the learned senior counsel is that on the grounds mentioned by the Commissioner in the show cause notice, power under Section 263 could not have been