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 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

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. When expenditure is established as bogus, there is no provision in the act, whereby partial disallowance to the bogus expenditure

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)

147 of the Act and in not adjudicating the merits of the case when there is the involvement of the issue of bogus purchase by the assessee? e) WHETHER the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in not considering that the transactions involved in the case were not only of highly suspicious nature, but the same were

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)

147 of the Act and in not adjudicating the merits of the case when there is the involvement of the issue of bogus purchase by the assessee? e) WHETHER the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in not considering that the transactions involved in the case were not only of highly suspicious nature, but the same were

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

purchases of the assessee during the year have been made with bogus parties/shell companies. Further the assessee failed to substantiate its transactions during the year and large cash deposits were found in its bank account, to the tune of Rs. 3,79,25,000/-.That the assessee failed to produce original cash memos and bills to substantiate the cash deposits

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.

147 read with section 143(3) of the Act by and which the claim made by the assessee towards the purchases amounting to Rs.18,41,476/- was treated as bogus

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

Section 143(3) read with 147 of the Act. Further, the statement which was recorded from various witnesses including that of Sanjiw Kumar Singh were considered and after considering the entire modus operandi, the assessing officer arrived at a conclusion that the expenditure is bogus and consequently the commission said to have been paid from an undisclosed source was also

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 2 KOLKATA vs. SEASIDE PROJECTS PVT LTD

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

bogus loss transactions on client code modification while deciding the appeal in favour of the assesee ignoring the preponderance of probability and Finding arrived at against the assessee? iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Tribunal was justified in law in not passing a speaking order by considering the materials available on record

BALGOPAL MERCHANTS PVT LTD. vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

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

purchased the shares at a premium of Rs. 4990/- per share namely Maida Securities Limited had raised a sum of Rs. 85,00,000/- as share application money. Similar is the case in respect of Astbhuja Mercantile Private Limited. The assessee had admitted before the CIT(A) that these companies are its associates. There is no explanation

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 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 CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S BST INFRATECH LTD

In the result the appeal is allowed, the order passed by the learned

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

purchased the shares of the assessee company at a premium for has neither NIL or negligible revenue from operations and the returns are either of loss or of insignificant incomes below taxable limits. They have all issued shares at a very high premium without having earned any revenue from business. They have also invested in shares at a very high

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

Section 263 could not have been exercised and such power could have been exercised only when the assessing officer failed to conduct an enquiry which is not the case of the assessee before this Court. With regard to under what circumstances the power under Section 263 could be invoked and the parameters to be fulfilled, reliance was placed

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

Section 263 could not have been exercised and such power could have been exercised only when the assessing officer failed to conduct an enquiry which is not the case of the assessee before this Court. With regard to under what circumstances the power under Section 263 could be invoked and the parameters to be fulfilled, reliance was placed

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

Section 263 could not have been exercised and such power could have been exercised only when the assessing officer failed to conduct an enquiry which is not the case of the assessee before this Court. With regard to under what circumstances the power under Section 263 could be invoked and the parameters to be fulfilled, reliance was placed

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

Section 263 could not have been exercised and such power could have been exercised only when the assessing officer failed to conduct an enquiry which is not the case of the assessee before this Court. With regard to under what circumstances the power under Section 263 could be invoked and the parameters to be fulfilled, reliance was placed

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

Section 263 could not have been exercised and such power could have been exercised only when the assessing officer failed to conduct an enquiry which is not the case of the assessee before this Court. With regard to under what circumstances the power under Section 263 could be invoked and the parameters to be fulfilled, reliance was placed