ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. K K GROUP OF COMPANY PVT. LTD., SIKKIM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm M/S Kk Group Of Company Acit, Central Circle-3(2), Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, Singtam Bazar, East Sikkim, 5Th Floor, 110, Shantipally, Vs. Singtam Forest Block, Singtam, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal S.O. 737134, Sikkim (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadck8867D Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.07.2025

bogus purchases when the identity and genuineness of the transactions were not established because none of the parties have responded to the notices issued u/s 133(6) of the Act. 04. The facts in brief are that the assessment u/s 147/ 143(3) of the Act was framed on 21.12.2018, assessing the total income at ₹22,76,130/-. The said

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAJSHRI IRON INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrisonjoy Sarma, Jm

bogus invoice, theinference that the appellant company had taken accommodation entry cannot be accepted. ITA Nos.2385 & 2388/KOL/2024& CO Nos. 46 & 47/KOL/2025 Rajshri Iron Industries Private Limited; A.Ys. 2013-14 &2018-19 6.2.5. Further, it is seen from the assessment order that the AO also stated there could be achance for out of books purchases of coal by the appellant company

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAJSHRI IRON INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrisonjoy Sarma, Jm

bogus invoice, theinference that the appellant company had taken accommodation entry cannot be accepted. ITA Nos.2385 & 2388/KOL/2024& CO Nos. 46 & 47/KOL/2025 Rajshri Iron Industries Private Limited; A.Ys. 2013-14 &2018-19 6.2.5. Further, it is seen from the assessment order that the AO also stated there could be achance for out of books purchases of coal by the appellant company

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the\nCOs of the assessee are partly allowed

bogus purchases. Accordingly, we uphold the order of Id.\nCIT (A) by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue on this issue. Ground\nno.3 of Revenue's appeal is dismissed.\n025. The issue raised by Revenue in Ground no.4 and 5, is against\nthe deletion of addition of ₹2,57,72,500/-, by the Id. CIT (A) as made

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. DHANSAR ENGINEERING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

bogus. This being a finding of fact, we have proceeded on such basis. Despite this, the question arises whether the Revenue is correct in contending that the entire purchase amount should be added by way of assessee's additional income or the assessee is correct in contending that such logic cannot be applied. The finding

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SAWANSUKHA JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, CO of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Sawansukhajewellers Acit, Circle-7(1), Private Limited 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, 4Th Floor, 9, Camac Street, Vs. Kolkata-700069, Kolkata-700017, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafcs2477R Co No. 32/Kol/2024 (Airing Out Of The Ita No. 1615/Kol/2024 For A.Y. 2018-19) Sawansukhajewellers Acit, Circle-7(1), Private Limited 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 4Th Floor, 9, Camac Street, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Kolkata-700017, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kapil Mondal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2025

bogus when on the contrary the relevant documents and/or evidence in support of the said transactions and the existence of the parties were made available before the same and whether the said arbitrary confirmation and/or addition of amounts of Rs. 3,12,302/-, Rs. 50,675/- and Rs. 1,00,737/- respectively is perverse? ii) "Whether on the facts

APL METALS LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(3), KOLKATA

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm I.T.A. No.297/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2018-19 Apl Metals Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, National C/O, Subash Agarwal & Faceless Assessment Centre, Associates, Advocates, Siddha Delhi. Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata- 700069. (Pan: Aacca4246P) (Appellant) (Respondent)

deduction of tax. Ld. CIT(A) noticed that various new details have been filed for the first time. He thus called for a remand report from the Ld. AO. Detailed remand proceedings were carried out and when the notice was sent to the alleged seven parties either no such person was available at those addresses or the Page

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

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.

deduction of commission. 22. A perusal of para 4, it is noted that the AO states that the assessee has availed the service of entry provider Shri Ajit for providing it with bogus billing from his company, M/s. Bridge & Building Pvt. Ltd. and again repeated about the admission made by Shri Ajit Kumar Jindal that he was an entry provider

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

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.

deduction of commission. 22. A perusal of para 4, it is noted that the AO states that the assessee has availed the service of entry provider Shri Ajit for providing it with bogus billing from his company, M/s. Bridge & Building Pvt. Ltd. and again repeated about the admission made by Shri Ajit Kumar Jindal that he was an entry provider

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

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.

deduction of commission. 22. A perusal of para 4, it is noted that the AO states that the assessee has availed the service of entry provider Shri Ajit for providing it with bogus billing from his company, M/s. Bridge & Building Pvt. Ltd. and again repeated about the admission made by Shri Ajit Kumar Jindal that he was an entry provider

MINA PRADHAN,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 42(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2017-18 is allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Rakesh Mishra

deduction under any head of income.” 4.1. Therefore, the Ld. AO was incorrect in law in applying the provisions of Section 69C of the Act on the transactions shown as sales to SINPL. The result of search itself indicated that SINPL had made payments against the purchase of machinery and parts from various entities which were bogus

MINA PRADHAN,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 42(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2017-18 is allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Rakesh Mishra

deduction under any head of income.” 4.1. Therefore, the Ld. AO was incorrect in law in applying the provisions of Section 69C of the Act on the transactions shown as sales to SINPL. The result of search itself indicated that SINPL had made payments against the purchase of machinery and parts from various entities which were bogus

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

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

bogus purchases. Accordingly, we uphold the order of ld. CIT (A) by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue on this issue. Ground no.3 of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 025. The issue raised by Revenue in Ground no.4 and 5, is against the deletion of addition of ₹2,57,72,500/-, by the ld. CIT (A) as made

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

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

bogus purchases. Accordingly, we uphold the order of ld. CIT (A) by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue on this issue. Ground no.3 of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 025. The issue raised by Revenue in Ground no.4 and 5, is against the deletion of addition of ₹2,57,72,500/-, by the ld. CIT (A) as made

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 4 KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

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

bogus purchases. Accordingly, we uphold the order of ld. CIT (A) by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue on this issue. Ground no.3 of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 025. The issue raised by Revenue in Ground no.4 and 5, is against the deletion of addition of ₹2,57,72,500/-, by the ld. CIT (A) as made

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

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

bogus purchases. Accordingly, we uphold the order of ld. CIT (A) by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue on this issue. Ground no.3 of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 025. The issue raised by Revenue in Ground no.4 and 5, is against the deletion of addition of ₹2,57,72,500/-, by the ld. CIT (A) as made

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

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

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

purchases during the year, deploying its funds. There ought to be certain element of profit embedded in the sale transaction executed which must be brought to tax. 15. Considering the above submission of the ld. DR and taking a holistic view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find it proper to consider net profit element

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

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

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

purchases during the year, deploying its funds. There ought to be certain element of profit embedded in the sale transaction executed which must be brought to tax. 15. Considering the above submission of the ld. DR and taking a holistic view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find it proper to consider net profit element