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

5 assessee was fully justified in contending that the sales are accepted, purchase cannot be treated as bogus. The CIT(A) was of the view that the notices issued under section

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)

section 69C of the Act on the ground of bogus purchases from Sancheti. The assessee preferred appeals before the 5

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)

section 69C of the Act on the ground of bogus purchases from Sancheti. The assessee preferred appeals before the 5

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.

5 KOLKATA VS ADVANCE ENGINEERING CORPORATION BEFORE : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM -A N D- HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS) DATE : 9th June, 2025. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. …for appellant. The Court : This appeal by the revenue filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated

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 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 purchase. The Assessing Officer could not have done so neither he should have rejected the books of accounts and, consequently, rejected the gross profit determined at 9.18% and then proceeded to determine the gross profit based on documents and records. Furthermore, the appellate authority has also noted that the assessee has responded to the show-cause notice by submitting

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

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

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

5 KOLKATA VS ADVANCE ENGINEERING CORPORATION BEFORE : THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS) Date : 17th July, 2025 Appearance : Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. ..for the appellant. The Court : Though notice has been served on the respondent/assessee, none appears for the respondent/assessee. This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A

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

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

5% disallowance thus re-calculating Gross Profit, whereas commissioner’s finding, in 263 revisionary order, is related to ‘unexplained 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

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

5 (1980) 126 ITR 48 ITAT NO. 232 OF 2023 REPORTABLE Page 12 of 26 introduced into the taxing enactments step by step in order to plug loopholes and in order to place certain situations beyond doubt even though there were judicial decisions covering some of the aspects. Even long prior to introduction of Section 68 in the statute book

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)

Section 10(38) of the Act should not be allowed because share transactions were bogus as Company “C” whose shares were allegedly purchased was a penny stock. With the above reasoning, the appeal was dismissed. 8. The assessee filed appeal before the tribunal. The only argument which appears to have been made before the learned tribunal by the assessee

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

Section 43(5) of the Act. Therefore, it is submitted that the orders passed by the tribunal may be affirmed. 22. Mr. Saurabh Bagaria, learned advocate appearing for the appellant in ITAT No. 138 of 2021 had painstakingly taken us through the assessment order dated 09.12.2016 and submitted that the assessee had made investment in reputed companies yet suffered long

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

Section 43(5) of the Act. Therefore, it is submitted that the orders passed by the tribunal may be affirmed. 22. Mr. Saurabh Bagaria, learned advocate appearing for the appellant in ITAT No. 138 of 2021 had painstakingly taken us through the assessment order dated 09.12.2016 and submitted that the assessee had made investment in reputed companies yet suffered long

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

Section 43(5) of the Act. Therefore, it is submitted that the orders passed by the tribunal may be affirmed. 22. Mr. Saurabh Bagaria, learned advocate appearing for the appellant in ITAT No. 138 of 2021 had painstakingly taken us through the assessment order dated 09.12.2016 and submitted that the assessee had made investment in reputed companies yet suffered long

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 43(5) of the Act. Therefore, it is submitted that the orders passed by the tribunal may be affirmed. 22. Mr. Saurabh Bagaria, learned advocate appearing for the appellant in ITAT No. 138 of 2021 had painstakingly taken us through the assessment order dated 09.12.2016 and submitted that the assessee had made investment in reputed companies yet suffered long

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 43(5) of the Act. Therefore, it is submitted that the orders passed by the tribunal may be affirmed. 22. Mr. Saurabh Bagaria, learned advocate appearing for the appellant in ITAT No. 138 of 2021 had painstakingly taken us through the assessment order dated 09.12.2016 and submitted that the assessee had made investment in reputed companies yet suffered long

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 43(5) of the Act. Therefore, it is submitted that the orders passed by the tribunal may be affirmed. 22. Mr. Saurabh Bagaria, learned advocate appearing for the appellant in ITAT No. 138 of 2021 had painstakingly taken us through the assessment order dated 09.12.2016 and submitted that the assessee had made investment in reputed companies yet suffered long

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 43(5) of the Act. Therefore, it is submitted that the orders passed by the tribunal may be affirmed. 22. Mr. Saurabh Bagaria, learned advocate appearing for the appellant in ITAT No. 138 of 2021 had painstakingly taken us through the assessment order dated 09.12.2016 and submitted that the assessee had made investment in reputed companies yet suffered long