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

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

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

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)

disallowances of expenses related to purchases from Sancheti Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. which were "bogus" in nature ? c) WHETHER in facts

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)

disallowances of expenses related to purchases from Sancheti Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. which were "bogus" in nature ? c) WHETHER in facts

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 ?

disallow bogus purchases fully, but resorted to a certain percentage ? We have heard the learned standing Counsel appearing for the appellants

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.

purchases amounting to Rs.18,41,476/- was treated as bogus expenditure under section 69C of the Act and 2% of the said bogus expenditure, i.e., Rs.36,829/- as commission which was made from some undisclosed sources was also disallowed

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S JAJODIA FINANCE LIMITED

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

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

purchase and sale of investment, share application etc. against commission on total transaction amount. With this fact a show-cause notice was served on the assessee setting out all the relevant particulars and the assessee company was informed that the information shows that the assessee company does not have any real business activity and the loss shown from trading

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 :

disallowance under Section 40(a) for payment made to foreign parties, bogus purchases, liquidated damages, income tax interest expense, commission

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 transaction and, accordingly, disallowed

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)

purchased by the assessee were listed in the list of “bogus capital loss claims”. The information which the assessing officer was able to ascertain was informed to the assessee more particularly, the details of the investigation report and the allegations made therein. Subsequently, two showcause notices were issued dated 05.10.2016 and 31.10.2016 calling upon the assessee to explain

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. R C SUPPLIERS PVT LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

Bench: :

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of Bogus Loss from share transaction amounting to Rs.71,38,200/- from the scrip of “First Financial Services Ltd.” was 2 justified in view of the fact that the said company was in the list of entities involved in doing suspicious transaction in penny stocks and that the assessee, who was specialized

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA vs. SAMRAT FINVESTORS PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ,HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

bogus loss. Thus, the addition/disallowance made by the assessee is merely on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. Therefore, in the present case, when the statements and investigation report relied upon by the AO has not been given to the assessee for the purpose of cross-examination as well as rebuttal, we in view of the above decision are inclined

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 1 KOLKATA vs. MEGAPODE VYAPAR PVT LTD

The appeal is dismissed, and the stay petition

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ,HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

purchase and sale 2 of penny stocks i.e. BLUE CIRCLE & CCL INTERNATIONAL featuring in the list of ‘Bogus Capital Loss Claims’ information data provided by the Directorate of Investigation, Kolkata? ii. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal was justified in law in allowing the appeal of the assessee and deleting the disallowance

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

disallowance of commission of Rs. 14,118/- purportedly incurred by the assessee towards payment to brokers who allegedly entered into the share transactions at the behest of the assessee overlooking the fact that the entire transaction were stage managed with the object to facilitate the assessee to plough back its unaccounted income in the form of fictitious Long Term Capital

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

disallowance of commission of Rs. 14,118/- purportedly incurred by the assessee towards payment to brokers who allegedly entered into the share transactions at the behest of the assessee overlooking the fact that the entire transaction were stage managed with the object to facilitate the assessee to plough back its unaccounted income in the form of fictitious Long Term Capital

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

disallowance of commission of Rs. 14,118/- purportedly incurred by the assessee towards payment to brokers who allegedly entered into the share transactions at the behest of the assessee overlooking the fact that the entire transaction were stage managed with the object to facilitate the assessee to plough back its unaccounted income in the form of fictitious Long Term Capital

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

disallowance of commission of Rs. 14,118/- purportedly incurred by the assessee towards payment to brokers who allegedly entered into the share transactions at the behest of the assessee overlooking the fact that the entire transaction were stage managed with the object to facilitate the assessee to plough back its unaccounted income in the form of fictitious Long Term Capital

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

disallowance of commission of Rs. 14,118/- purportedly incurred by the assessee towards payment to brokers who allegedly entered into the share transactions at the behest of the assessee overlooking the fact that the entire transaction were stage managed with the object to facilitate the assessee to plough back its unaccounted income in the form of fictitious Long Term Capital

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

disallowance of commission of Rs. 14,118/- purportedly incurred by the assessee towards payment to brokers who allegedly entered into the share transactions at the behest of the assessee overlooking the fact that the entire transaction were stage managed with the object to facilitate the assessee to plough back its unaccounted income in the form of fictitious Long Term Capital