BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

112 results for “bogus purchases”+ Cash Depositclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai745Delhi564Jaipur189Chennai154Ahmedabad130Kolkata112Bangalore100Chandigarh83Indore65Rajkot58Cochin57Hyderabad54Surat46Amritsar44Nagpur37Guwahati31Lucknow28Supreme Court27Visakhapatnam25Jodhpur25Allahabad24Pune21Raipur20Agra13Varanasi8Cuttack6Jabalpur5Patna4Ranchi3Dehradun3Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 68107Section 147106Section 148100Addition to Income80Section 25044Section 115J43Section 143(3)38Unexplained Cash Credit30Section 143(2)

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLKATA vs. JKJ JEWELLERS (HCM), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as CO of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 420/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Jkj Jewellers (Hcm) Income Tax Officer 1St Floor, 18, Hanspukur First 3, Govt. Place (West), Ground Lane, Burrabazar, Floor, Kolkata-700069, West Vs. Kolkata-700007, Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aakfj7956Q Co No. 26/Kol/2024 (Arising In Ita No. 420/Kol/2024 For A.Y. 2017-18) Jkj Jewellers (Hcm) Income Tax Officer 1St Floor, 18, Hanspukur First 3, Govt. Place (West), Ground Lane, Burrabazar, Floor, Kolkata-700069, Vs. Kolkata-700007, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. Jhajharia, Ar Revenue By : Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, DR
Section 143Section 68

Cash so deposited was required to be deposited in Home Branch of the concerned Bank i.e. HDFC Bank whereas in Delhi it had only margin a/c, with HDFC Bank and Bank as per it’s internal requirement asked it to deposit at Jaipur Branch which customers’ Home Branch a/c. Appellant submitted relevant bank certificate as well. 1. Such sales were

Showing 1–20 of 112 · Page 1 of 6

27
Reassessment23
Reopening of Assessment22
Section 13221

M/S. GUNNY DEALERS LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TECH-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

ITA 1373/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1373/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2012-13 M/S Gunny Dealers Ltd…………………....................…...……………....Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Aabcg0019R] Vs. Ito, Tech-1, Kolkata………….……………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 27, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.11.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Haye Considered That The Order U/S 143(3) Was Passed By An Authority Who Lacks Jurisdiction Over The Appellant & As Such, The Said Order Is Bad In Law & Is Liable To Be Quashed. 2. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Disallowance Of

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(3)

cash purchases of raw jute. The assessee in this respect has explained that the farmers brought their produce in the premises of the assessee, however, if the assessee has already achieved its targeted purchase, then the farmers are offered to sell their produce on credit I.T.A. No.1373/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2012-13 M/s Gunny Dealers Ltd basis. It was also explained

DEPUTY COMMISSOENR OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1728/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, DR
Section 14ASection 68Section 69C

deposit made in the bank account of a third party was from the assessee company. No opportunity to cross-examine any these parties was provided to the assessee. The bank statements based on which the cash trail was ITA Nos.1728 & 1729/KOL/2024 Dollar Holding Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 15-16 and 17-18 prepared are part of the disclosed documents and cannot

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1729/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, DR
Section 14ASection 68Section 69C

deposit made in the bank account of a third party was from the assessee company. No opportunity to cross-examine any these parties was provided to the assessee. The bank statements based on which the cash trail was ITA Nos.1728 & 1729/KOL/2024 Dollar Holding Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 15-16 and 17-18 prepared are part of the disclosed documents and cannot

JAI MA SATI NET LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-2(2), DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 445/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 445/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jai Ma Sati Net Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Vs Durgapur Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane Suite -213, 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Aabcj3238K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/06/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/08/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 31/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of The Mosquito Nets. Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2017-18 Filed On 13/10/2017. Case Of The Assessee Selected For Scrutiny By Issuing Notice Under Section 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings The Ld. Assessing Officer Asked The Assessee To Explain The Source Of Cash Deposit During The Demonetisation Period In 2

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

cash deposits and alleged that the assessee may have made some entries in the back date and created bogus debtors by creating bogus sales. The ld. Assessing Officer accordingly, added the sales amount of Rs.65,31,286/-, made by the assessee during the demonetisation period and assessed the income accordingly. 2.1. Aggrieved the assessee preferred appeal before

ARPITA PAL,BURDWAN vs. ITO, ASANSOL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 950/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 44ASection 45ASection 69A

bogus and cash deposited on account of sales, of Rs.44,50,500/- is deemed as unexplained money because the source of alleged cash deposit has not been explained by the assessee. Income assessed at Rs.52,76,370/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but failed to succeed as the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the finding

RAM KUMAR GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 43, , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 309/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.309/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ram Kumar Gupta…...…………….....……………………....………....Appellant 67/46, Posta Chowrasta, Kolkata -700007. [Pan: Adrpg8556B] Vs. Acit, Circle-43, Kolkata…...................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rajiva Kumar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit- Dr On Behalf Of P. P. Barman, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 09, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.12.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.1,10,46,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Cash Deposits In The Bank Account Of The Assessee During Demonetization Period. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Derives Income From Retail Trading In The Name Of M/S R. Kumar & Co. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 28.07.2017 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.8,19,420/-. The Return Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S

Section 250Section 44ASection 68

deposited in the bank account form part of the sale proceeds credited in the profit & loss account hence the I.T.A. No.309/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ram Kumar Gupta addition thereof amounts to double taxation of same income which is not permissible under the law. In Dewas Soya Ltd. vs. ITO (ITA No. 336/Ind/2012), the Indore Bench of the ITAT held

ANIL KUMAR PAIK ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-8(1), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 492/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 492/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anil Kumar Paik Acit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Vs 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor Suite No. 203 Off Hare Street Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aflpp6567R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 15/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld. Commissioner, Of Income Tax (Appeals)- N.F.A.C. Acted Unlawfully In Impliedly Sustaining; The Purported Addition Of Rs. 1,67.44,907/- Made The Ld. Assistant Commissioner, Of Income Tax, Circle 8(1) Kolkata By Invoking The Mischief U/S. 43Ca Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Without Satisfying The Parameters Thereof & The Adverse Conclusion Reached On That Behalf In Violation Of The Statutory Prescription Is Completely Unfounded, Unjustified & Untenable In Law. 2. For That The Specious Approach Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-N.F.A,C. Of Misreading Evidence, Considering Improper Facts

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 145Section 250Section 43C

bogus, rather, the payment of consideration in this case has been settled and paid as per the terms of the agreement. Under the circumstances, in the peculiar I.T.A No.354/Kol/2023 Assessment year: 2015-16 M/s Reegal Construction facts and circumstances, it will not be justified to adopt the stamp duty value as on the date of execution of the sale deed

BALAJEE METALLIC,PCIT vs. PCIT-1, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 227/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 227/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Balajee Metallic,……………………………..……Appellant 5A, Hospital Street, Chandni Chawk, Kolkata-700072 [Pan:Aamfb7518E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Kolkata-1, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 13, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 10, 2024 O R D E R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

deposited cash of Rs. 4.30 Crores upto the date of 08/11/2016. While on the other hand in respect of custom duty mismatch, the assessee has been confronted and the assessee has submitted that during the financial year 2016-17, the assessee firm has paid custom duty of Rs.4,83,920/- and additional duty of Rs.8,99,631/-. The assessee firm

NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 180/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

deposited an amount of Rs. 42,61,133/- in the appellant bank account for the F.Y. 2010-11. One of the most common ways to reduce profits is by inflating the purchase/ raw material cost, expenses like labour charges, entertainment expenses and commission. In such cases, bogus bills may be prepared to show inflated expenses in the books. It involves

NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 179/KOL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

deposited an amount of Rs. 42,61,133/- in the appellant bank account for the F.Y. 2010-11. One of the most common ways to reduce profits is by inflating the purchase/ raw material cost, expenses like labour charges, entertainment expenses and commission. In such cases, bogus bills may be prepared to show inflated expenses in the books. It involves

PURPLE SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,SURAT, GUJRAT vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

ITA 759/KOL/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

bogus purchases. Further, it was also revealed that the assessee company has also entered into transaction of purchase of goods from SDPL during all the three impugned years. Accordingly, notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 29.03.2018 for Ay 2011-12 and dated 30.03.2018 for AY 2012-13 and 2013-14 were issued and served upon the assessee for reopening

PURPLE SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,SURAT, GUJRAT vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

ITA 758/KOL/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

bogus purchases. Further, it was also revealed that the assessee company has also entered into transaction of purchase of goods from SDPL during all the three impugned years. Accordingly, notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 29.03.2018 for Ay 2011-12 and dated 30.03.2018 for AY 2012-13 and 2013-14 were issued and served upon the assessee for reopening

PURPLE SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,SURAT, GUJRAT vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

ITA 757/KOL/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

bogus purchases. Further, it was also revealed that the assessee company has also entered into transaction of purchase of goods from SDPL during all the three impugned years. Accordingly, notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 29.03.2018 for Ay 2011-12 and dated 30.03.2018 for AY 2012-13 and 2013-14 were issued and served upon the assessee for reopening

SHRI SUNIL KAYAN,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-36, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1917/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

depositing of cash in Shakambhari Tradex. When the assessee was confronted for the alleged receipt, it was stated that the assessee being a share broker has received the said amount for purchase of equity shares. The assessee filed complete details including the client account opening form, ledger account, contract notes as well as Demat accounts to show that Page

M/S. DELIGHTED HOLDINGS (P) LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIR, CIR-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 624/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

cash was deposited in a number of dubious accounts operated by accommodation entry providers. These accounts were utilized to provide entries of accommodation of various beneficiaries. In the instant case, it was reported that proprietary account M/s Ma Durga Creation and M/s Om Creation, held in the name of Sri Bal Krishna Joshi as proprietor was utilized to divert funds

M/S. ARTHUR TURNKEY PROJECTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, ITA No.1724/Kol/2025 filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee being ITA No

ITA 1193/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata.……………………………………….……….……Appellant Vs. Arthur Turnkey Projects Ltd.……………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent 1/1A, 4H Electronic Centre, Biplabi Anukul Chandra Street, Chandni Chawk, Kol-700072. [Pan: Aafcm4891H] Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arthur Turnkey Projects Ltd.……………………………………….……….……Assessee 1/1A, 4H Electronic Centre, Biplabi Anukul Chandra Street, Chandni Chawk, Kol-700072. [Pan: Aafcm4891H] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata.…………………………………….....……...…………..Revenue Appearances By: Shri Robin Maheshwari, Aca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 12, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Captioned Appeals & The Cross-Appeal, One Filed By The Revenue & The Other By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Both Dated 24.04.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017–18 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 250Section 68

purchases, the corresponding cash sales could not be treated as bogus”. Going over the above discussion and considering the judicial precedents, we find that the addition of Rs.34,96,000/- made on account of cash deposits

DCIT, CIRCLE1(1), KOLKATA vs. ARTHUR TURNKEY PROJECTS LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, ITA No.1724/Kol/2025 filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee being ITA No

ITA 1724/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata.……………………………………….……….……Appellant Vs. Arthur Turnkey Projects Ltd.……………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent 1/1A, 4H Electronic Centre, Biplabi Anukul Chandra Street, Chandni Chawk, Kol-700072. [Pan: Aafcm4891H] Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arthur Turnkey Projects Ltd.……………………………………….……….……Assessee 1/1A, 4H Electronic Centre, Biplabi Anukul Chandra Street, Chandni Chawk, Kol-700072. [Pan: Aafcm4891H] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata.…………………………………….....……...…………..Revenue Appearances By: Shri Robin Maheshwari, Aca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 12, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Captioned Appeals & The Cross-Appeal, One Filed By The Revenue & The Other By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Both Dated 24.04.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017–18 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 250Section 68

purchases, the corresponding cash sales could not be treated as bogus”. Going over the above discussion and considering the judicial precedents, we find that the addition of Rs.34,96,000/- made on account of cash deposits

HILTON COMMODITIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 676/KOL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Hilton Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward 5(3) 9/12, Lal Bazar Street, Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Mercantile Building, Block-B, Chowringhee Square, Vs. 3Rd Floor, No.10, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacch1011P Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Ar Revenue By : Shri S Datta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: Shri S Datta, CIT DR
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 68

cash credit. In Para 5.6, the ld. CIT (A) noted that there were total 8 share subscribers from whom the assessee raised the share capital who did not have creditworthiness and also the assessee failed to furnish the documents to substantiate its claim and identity of the share subscribers and the genuineness of the transactions. The ld. CIT (A) also

ANIL KUMAR PAIK,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 468/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 468/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Anil Kumar Paik Acit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Vs 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor Suite No. 203 Off Hare Street Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aflpp6567R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/09/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 15/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 43CSection 44A

purchases + sundry creditors as on 31/03/2015 + labour charges + opening work in progress. We are surprised to observe such kind of working by the Assessing Officer which is dumb founded and has merely picked up certain figures from the financial statements on the closing dates to arrive at such irrelevant workings. He has failed to understand that when the assessee