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 CIT(A) but the same was dismissed by order dated 3.11.2022. Challenging the said order, the assessee preferred appeals before the learned Tribunal which have been allowed by the impugned order. 8

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 CIT(A) but the same was dismissed by order dated 3.11.2022. Challenging the said order, the assessee preferred appeals before the learned Tribunal which have been allowed by the impugned order. 8

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

purchases can be fixed at 8 per cent. This finding was not approved by this Court and the appeal filed by the revenue was allowed. The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows :- “ … …. …. …. Therefore, we are of the view that such finding rendered by the learned Tribunal is erroneous and, accordingly, set aside. In the result, the appeal

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

purchase transactions with 10 entities to the tune of Rs. 68,58,39,462/- and Rs. 8,70,81,602/-, the assessing officer held the transactions to be not genuine as the assessee failed to produce the parties related to those transactions and the summons issued to them were also not complied with. Further the assessing officer pointed out that

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 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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S BRIDGE AND BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO PVT LTD

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Dated : November 28, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. …For Appellant The Court :- We Have Heard Learned Standing Counsel For The Appellant Mr. Prithu Dudhoria. Notice On The Respondent Has Been Served & The Same Has Been Returned With The Postal Endorsement “Unclaimed” Which Is Deemed To Be Proper Service. We Have Perused Affidavit Filed In Support Of The Petition & Found Sufficient Cause Has Been Shown For Not Being Able To Prefer The Appeal Within The Period Of Limitation. Hence, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned. The Petition Stands Allowed. This Appeal Has Been Filed Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated December 23, 2021 Passed

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act for brevity) is directed against the order dated December 23, 2021 passed 2 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench Kolkata in I.T.A. Nos. 374 & 533/Kol/2018 relating to the Assessment Year 2012-2013. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration: i) WHETHER

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S BRIDGE AND BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO PVT LTD

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Dated : November 28, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Om Narayan Rai, Adv. Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. …For Appellant The Court :- We Have Heard Learned Standing Counsel For The Appellant Mr. Prithu Dudhoria & Mr. Om Narayan Rai. Notice On The Respondent Has Been Served & The Same Has Returned With The Postal Endorsement “Unclaimed” Which Is Deemed To Be Proper Service. We Have Perused Affidavit Filed In Support Of The Petition & Found Sufficient Cause Has Been Shown For Not Being Able To Prefer The Appeal Within The Period Of Limitation. Hence, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned. The Petition Stands Allowed.

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act for brevity) is directed against the order dated December 23, 2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench Kolkata in I.T.A. Nos. 375 & 534/Kol/2018 relating to the Assessment Year 2014-2015. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration: i) WHETHER on the facts

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, 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

purchased and sold by the assessee of a shell company. The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), exercised power under Section 263 of the Act and reversed the order passed by the Assessing Officer. The learned Standing Counsel has elaborately referred to the findings recorded by the CIT and submitted that the assessee did not furnish any details which has 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

purchased and sold by the assessee of a shell company. The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), exercised power under Section 263 of the Act and reversed the order passed by the Assessing Officer. The learned Standing Counsel has elaborately referred to the findings recorded by the CIT and submitted that the assessee did not furnish any details which has 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

purchased and sold by the assessee of a shell company. The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), exercised power under Section 263 of the Act and reversed the order passed by the Assessing Officer. The learned Standing Counsel has elaborately referred to the findings recorded by the CIT and submitted that the assessee did not furnish any details which has been

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

purchased and sold by the assessee of a shell company. The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), exercised power under Section 263 of the Act and reversed the order passed by the Assessing Officer. The learned Standing Counsel has elaborately referred to the findings recorded by the CIT and submitted that the assessee did not furnish any details which has 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

purchased and sold by the assessee of a shell company. The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), exercised power under Section 263 of the Act and reversed the order passed by the Assessing Officer. The learned Standing Counsel has elaborately referred to the findings recorded by the CIT and submitted that the assessee did not furnish any details which has been

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

purchased and sold by the assessee of a shell company. The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), exercised power under Section 263 of the Act and reversed the order passed by the Assessing Officer. The learned Standing Counsel has elaborately referred to the findings recorded by the CIT and submitted that the assessee did not furnish any details which has been

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

purchased and sold by the assessee of a shell company. The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), exercised power under Section 263 of the Act and reversed the order passed by the Assessing Officer. The learned Standing Counsel has elaborately referred to the findings recorded by the CIT and submitted that the assessee did not furnish any details which has 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

purchased and sold by the assessee of a shell company. The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), exercised power under Section 263 of the Act and reversed the order passed by the Assessing Officer. The learned Standing Counsel has elaborately referred to the findings recorded by the CIT and submitted that the assessee did not furnish any details which has 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

purchased and sold by the assessee of a shell company. The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), exercised power under Section 263 of the Act and reversed the order passed by the Assessing Officer. The learned Standing Counsel has elaborately referred to the findings recorded by the CIT and submitted that the assessee did not furnish any details which has been