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)

U/s. 147 of the Act and in not adjudicating the merits of the case when there is the involvement of the issue of bogus 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

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)

U/s. 147 of the Act and in not adjudicating the merits of the case when there is the involvement of the issue of bogus 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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOL-1, KOLKATA vs. CHEVIOT COMPANY LIMITED

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

u/S. 10B of the Act and also exemption on receipts relating to EMA. Accordingly, we find that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against revenue by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator India Ltd. (2010) 310 ITR 561 (SC), wherein newly substituted provision of Section 147

M/S KUMAR TRADERS vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 10Th May, 2022. Appearance:- Ms. Chandrani Das, Adv. Ms. Riti Basu, Adv.

147, read with Section 143(3), were put to challenge by the appellants before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – Central II, Kolkata [CIT(A)] and all the appeals were dismissed. Challenging the same the assessees preferred appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the factual position noted that before the CIT(A) the assessee had raised the three

M/S RAMESHWAR LAL SAJJAN KUMAR (PRESENTLY VINSA ELECTRICAL P vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 10Th May, 2022. Appearance:- Ms. Chandrani Das, Adv. Ms. Riti Basu, Adv.

147, read with Section 143(3), were put to challenge by the appellants before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – Central II, Kolkata [CIT(A)] and all the appeals were dismissed. Challenging the same the assessees preferred appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the factual position noted that before the CIT(A) the assessee had raised the three

M/S R R SONS TRADING COMPANY vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-XVI, KOLKA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 10Th May, 2022. Appearance:- Ms. Chandrani Das, Adv. Ms. Riti Basu, Adv.

147, read with Section 143(3), were put to challenge by the appellants before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – Central II, Kolkata [CIT(A)] and all the appeals were dismissed. Challenging the same the assessees preferred appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the factual position noted that before the CIT(A) the assessee had raised the three

M/S MAYUR VYAPAR PVT LTD. vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 10Th May, 2022. Appearance:- Ms. Chandrani Das, Adv. Ms. Riti Basu, Adv.

147, read with Section 143(3), were put to challenge by the appellants before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – Central II, Kolkata [CIT(A)] and all the appeals were dismissed. Challenging the same the assessees preferred appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the factual position noted that before the CIT(A) the assessee had raised the three

M/S LEOPARD FINANCIERS PVT LTD. vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 10Th May, 2022. Appearance:- Ms. Chandrani Das, Adv. Ms. Riti Basu, Adv.

147, read with Section 143(3), were put to challenge by the appellants before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – Central II, Kolkata [CIT(A)] and all the appeals were dismissed. Challenging the same the assessees preferred appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the factual position noted that before the CIT(A) the assessee had raised the three

M/S HIGAIN CONSULTANCY SERVICES (P) LTD. vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 10Th May, 2022. Appearance:- Ms. Chandrani Das, Adv. Ms. Riti Basu, Adv.

147, read with Section 143(3), were put to challenge by the appellants before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – Central II, Kolkata [CIT(A)] and all the appeals were dismissed. Challenging the same the assessees preferred appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the factual position noted that before the CIT(A) the assessee had raised the three

M/S SUNIL FAN INDUSTRIES vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-35(2), KOLKATA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 10Th May, 2022. Appearance:- Ms. Chandrani Das, Adv. Ms. Riti Basu, Adv.

147, read with Section 143(3), were put to challenge by the appellants before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – Central II, Kolkata [CIT(A)] and all the appeals were dismissed. Challenging the same the assessees preferred appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the factual position noted that before the CIT(A) the assessee had raised the three

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. BOOTHNATH VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

5. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the records. From the reference made to the reasons to believe recorded by the Ld. AO and the observations noted 2 in the assessment order as extracted above, we note that in the instant case, the justification of Ld. AO is not amenable to reason since he did not satisfy

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 KOLKATA vs. MANOJ JAIN

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

5. The Ld. A.R. vehemently submitted before us that the reopening of assessment as made by the AO u/s 147 read with Section 148 of the Act is invalid on three counts namely: i) Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued by non- jurisdiction AO ii) Notice u/s 148 dated 28.03.2017 was unsigned by referring to page

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9 KOLKATA vs. MRS PREMLATA TEKRIWAL

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are

Bench: This Court In Itat/27/2022, Itat/32/2022 And

147 of the Act, on 30/03/2015 on the basis of incriminating information received by the AO. In the said assessment order it was established that expenditure worth 4 Rs.54,14,476/-, claimed by you as purchase, was bogus. When expenditure is established as bogus, there is no provision in the act, whereby partial disallowance to the bogus expenditure

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9 KOLKATA vs. BINOD KUMAR TEKRIWAL

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are allowed and the

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak Date : 15Th July, 2022. Appearance :- Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ….For Appellant

147 of the Act, on 30/03/2015 on the basis of incriminating information received by the AO. In the said assessment order it was established that expenditure worth Rs.54,14,476/-, claimed by you as purchase, was bogus. When expenditure is established as bogus, there is no provision in the act, whereby partial disallowance to the bogus expenditure