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)

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 also bogus in terms of the well settled principles of circumstantial evidence and preponderance of probability as elicited by the Hon'ble High

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)

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 also bogus in terms of the well settled principles of circumstantial evidence and preponderance of probability as elicited by the Hon'ble High

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 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

3 24.8.2023 was set aside. The assessee filed the return of income on 28.9.2012 declaring the total income of rupees Nil. The return was processed under Section 143(1) and thereafter, the case was reopened under Section 147 of the Act on the ground of bogus billing in the guise of purchases

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA - 4 vs. M/S STANDARD LEATHER PVT LTD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE

purchase of raw hides and skins from the producers, the assessing officer issued notices to some of those persons under Section 133(6) of the Act which 3 appear to have returned by the postal department with the endorsement ‘not known’. Therefore, the assessing officer disbelieved the transaction and treated those documents to be bogus

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.

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 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 8D, deduction under Section 801A, deduction under Section 80IC. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3

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. 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)

3 wherein the order passed by the tribunal was upheld holding that the claim of the assessee therein for exemption under Section 10(38) of the Act should not be allowed because share transactions were bogus as Company “C” whose shares were allegedly purchased

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

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 ?

bogus purchases fully, but resorted to a certain percentage ? We have heard the learned standing Counsel appearing for the appellants and the respondents. The short question involved in these appeals is whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax – 10, Kolkata [PCIT] could have exercised his powers under section 263 of the Act. In our considered view, the tribunal has elaborately

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

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 7th November, 2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in ITA No.822/Kol/2023 for the assessment year 2012-13. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration: “ i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

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 44. We have heard Mr. Soumen Bhattacharyya, learned standing counsel for the appellant/revenue. Though notice has been served on the respondent/assessee, none appears for the respondent. The assessee filed the return of income for the assessment year under

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 KOLKATA vs. SHRI SAWANKUMAR T JAJOO

Accordingly, the appeal fails and dismissed

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

bogus Long Term Capital Gain from sale of penny stocks and also covered by exceptions laid in respect of Para 3.1(h) of CBDT’S Circular No. 5 of 2024 dated March 15, 2024? 3 3. We have heard Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and Ms. Aratrika Roy, learned senior Advocate appearing for respondent/assessee. There

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

bogus exemption, thereby giving rise to the vice of flaw in the decision making process. 3. The assessee in the lead case, Mrs. Swati Bajaj filed the return of income for the assessment year 2014-2015 declaring a total income of Rs. 6,57,300/-.The return was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section

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

bogus exemption, thereby giving rise to the vice of flaw in the decision making process. 3. The assessee in the lead case, Mrs. Swati Bajaj filed the return of income for the assessment year 2014-2015 declaring a total income of Rs. 6,57,300/-.The return was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section

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

bogus exemption, thereby giving rise to the vice of flaw in the decision making process. 3. The assessee in the lead case, Mrs. Swati Bajaj filed the return of income for the assessment year 2014-2015 declaring a total income of Rs. 6,57,300/-.The return was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section