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

4 expenditure or part thereof, as the case made be, may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year. It is evidently clear that the said section 69C would stand attracted if the source of expenditure is not satisfactorily explained by the assessee before the Assessing Officer and only then it will be deemed

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 69C of the Act and added back to the total income of the assessee for the assessment year under consideration. The assessee preferred appeal before the appellate authority and by a detailed order dated 27.1.2023 the assessee’s appeal was dismissed. The assessee challenged the said order before the learned Tribunal. As could be seen from paragraph

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 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 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, 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 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) of the Act by order dated 29.03.2014. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

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

4. The assessee filed their return of income for the assessment year under consideration, A.Y. 2011-2012, on 30.09.2011 declaring a total income of Rs. 34,66,719/-. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) on 27.03.2014 with the total income of Rs. 1,87,52,820/-. The assessment was reopened under Section

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. MINTO PARK ESTATES PVT LTD

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

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

purchase of the shares. 4. Further it was observed that merely because the share subscriber companies are incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 that would not add any credibility or evidentiary value and does not prove the transaction to be genuine. That apart, merely because transactions were entered into by way of account payee cheque is also not conclusive

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-15, KOLKATA vs. SMT. BABITA AGARWAL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

4. The report dated 27.04.2015 appears to have triggered action throughout the country and the appellant would state that the Directorate of Investigation vide a letter dated 03.07.2015 reported that prices of shares of penny stocks were artificially rigged to benefit of assessees through bogus claims of LTCG. It is further stated that the report submitted by the Directorate

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-18, KOLKATA vs. SRI VIKASH GOEL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

4. The report dated 27.04.2015 appears to have triggered action throughout the country and the appellant would state that the Directorate of Investigation vide a letter dated 03.07.2015 reported that prices of shares of penny stocks were artificially rigged to benefit of assessees through bogus claims of LTCG. It is further stated that the report submitted by the Directorate

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

4. The report dated 27.04.2015 appears to have triggered action throughout the country and the appellant would state that the Directorate of Investigation vide a letter dated 03.07.2015 reported that prices of shares of penny stocks were artificially rigged to benefit of assessees through bogus claims of LTCG. It is further stated that the report submitted by the Directorate

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

4. The report dated 27.04.2015 appears to have triggered action throughout the country and the appellant would state that the Directorate of Investigation vide a letter dated 03.07.2015 reported that prices of shares of penny stocks were artificially rigged to benefit of assessees through bogus claims of LTCG. It is further stated that the report submitted by the Directorate

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

4. The report dated 27.04.2015 appears to have triggered action throughout the country and the appellant would state that the Directorate of Investigation vide a letter dated 03.07.2015 reported that prices of shares of penny stocks were artificially rigged to benefit of assessees through bogus claims of LTCG. It is further stated that the report submitted by the Directorate

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

4. The report dated 27.04.2015 appears to have triggered action throughout the country and the appellant would state that the Directorate of Investigation vide a letter dated 03.07.2015 reported that prices of shares of penny stocks were artificially rigged to benefit of assessees through bogus claims of LTCG. It is further stated that the report submitted by the Directorate

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

4. The report dated 27.04.2015 appears to have triggered action throughout the country and the appellant would state that the Directorate of Investigation vide a letter dated 03.07.2015 reported that prices of shares of penny stocks were artificially rigged to benefit of assessees through bogus claims of LTCG. It is further stated that the report submitted by the Directorate

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

4. The report dated 27.04.2015 appears to have triggered action throughout the country and the appellant would state that the Directorate of Investigation vide a letter dated 03.07.2015 reported that prices of shares of penny stocks were artificially rigged to benefit of assessees through bogus claims of LTCG. It is further stated that the report submitted by the Directorate