MANOJ BEGANI,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-44, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

bogus stock of diamonds in our books of accounts, which are shown to be purchased / imported from foreign concerns. Therefore, the diamonds shown to be purchased/imported from foreign concerns thus are against shown to be sold to the independent concerns mentioned in Block E. These concerns in Block E take purchase bills from our concerns (Block C) without actual delivery

MANOJ BEGANI,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-44, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

bogus stock of diamonds in our books of accounts, which are shown to be purchased / imported from foreign concerns. Therefore, the diamonds shown to be purchased/imported from foreign concerns thus are against shown to be sold to the independent concerns mentioned in Block E. These concerns in Block E take purchase bills from our concerns (Block C) without actual delivery

MANOJ BEGANI,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-44, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

bogus stock of diamonds in our books of accounts, which are shown to be purchased / imported from foreign concerns. Therefore, the diamonds shown to be purchased/imported from foreign concerns thus are against shown to be sold to the independent concerns mentioned in Block E. These concerns in Block E take purchase bills from our concerns (Block C) without actual delivery

MANOJ BEGANI,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-44, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

bogus stock of diamonds in our books of accounts, which are shown to be purchased / imported from foreign concerns. Therefore, the diamonds shown to be purchased/imported from foreign concerns thus are against shown to be sold to the independent concerns mentioned in Block E. These concerns in Block E take purchase bills from our concerns (Block C) without actual delivery

MANOJ BEGANI,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-44, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

bogus stock of diamonds in our books of accounts, which are shown to be purchased / imported from foreign concerns. Therefore, the diamonds shown to be purchased/imported from foreign concerns thus are against shown to be sold to the independent concerns mentioned in Block E. These concerns in Block E take purchase bills from our concerns (Block C) without actual delivery

SANDIP KUMAR TEKRIWAL HUF,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 10, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, these three appeals of three assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1134/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11)

bogus purchases therefore ld PCIT held that assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue.Accordingly the ld. PCIT directed the Assessing Officer to re-assess the income of the assessee for the relevant A.Y. 2010-11 on the issue as discussed above. 10. Aggrieved by order of ld. PCIT, the assessee

BINOD KUMAR TEKRIWAL HUF,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 10, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, these three appeals of three assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1134/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11)

bogus purchases therefore ld PCIT held that assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue.Accordingly the ld. PCIT directed the Assessing Officer to re-assess the income of the assessee for the relevant A.Y. 2010-11 on the issue as discussed above. 10. Aggrieved by order of ld. PCIT, the assessee

SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR TEKRIWAL,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 10, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, these three appeals of three assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1134/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11)

bogus purchases therefore ld PCIT held that assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue.Accordingly the ld. PCIT directed the Assessing Officer to re-assess the income of the assessee for the relevant A.Y. 2010-11 on the issue as discussed above. 10. Aggrieved by order of ld. PCIT, the assessee

DCIT, CIR-26(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CHIEN HSING TANNERY, KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T. A No. 1629/Kol/2017 A.Y 2012-13 A.C.I.T, Cir-26(1), Kolkata V/S. M/S. Chien Hsing Tannery Pan: Aaefc7201R (Appellant) (Respondent)

bogus purchases were accounted to inflate expenses and thereby reduce profits is ex­facie incorrect and contrary to the facts on record. Even otherwise it is submitted that the entire addition has been made by the AO without taking into consideration the simple basic fact that in arriving at the total income for A. Y. 2012­13 the appellant had not claimed

ACIT, CIRCLE-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result Ground no. 1 & 3 of the revenue are allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd…….............................................................……………………..Appellant 27, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aaecs 0765 R] Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-12 Kolkata……...............................…….…..Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13

purchases and bogus sub-contract expenses, (b) deduction u/s 80-IA(4) of the Act, (c) disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r

M/S. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result Ground no. 1 & 3 of the revenue are allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd…….............................................................……………………..Appellant 27, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aaecs 0765 R] Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-12 Kolkata……...............................…….…..Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13

purchases and bogus sub-contract expenses, (b) deduction u/s 80-IA(4) of the Act, (c) disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r

M/S. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result Ground no. 1 & 3 of the revenue are allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd…….............................................................……………………..Appellant 27, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aaecs 0765 R] Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-12 Kolkata……...............................…….…..Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13

purchases and bogus sub-contract expenses, (b) deduction u/s 80-IA(4) of the Act, (c) disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r

ACIT, CIRCLE-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result Ground no. 1 & 3 of the revenue are allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd…….............................................................……………………..Appellant 27, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aaecs 0765 R] Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-12 Kolkata……...............................…….…..Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13

purchases and bogus sub-contract expenses, (b) deduction u/s 80-IA(4) of the Act, (c) disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-36(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SAHA AGENCY, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed and the Cross Objection of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

deduction for incurring expenses on such purchases. Apart from above, we find undisputed sale of Rs. 28,17,207. The assessee declared GP of Rs.94,740. The calculation of GP comes to 3.36 per cent. The undisputed fact is that the AO has accepted that the assessee maintained quantity details in respect of material purchased and sold. Inventory of closing

BADAL KRISHNA SAHA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-53(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ]

Bogus Purchase Rs.11,13,421/- ( As discussed above) iv) As regards Labour charges. Rs.3,60,500/- ITA No.672/Kol/2015-Badal Krishna Saha A.Y.2010-11 4 ( As discussed above) v) As regards Hire charges. Rs.5,60,000/- Rs.40,20.957/- ( As discussed above) Rs.44,51,863/- The assessee had claimed deduction

A R UDYOG,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD 46(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

bogus purchases from the two parties to the extent of VAT\namount which is not debited to the profit and loss account. The\nassessee has stated that in case the alleged addition on account of\npurchases from these two parties are sustained the gross profit ratio\namounts to 31% which is exceptionally high and is commercially\nunattainable as per prevailing

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTHAN ENGINEERING & INDUSTRIES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.952/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

bogus purchase, the addition so made is bad in law since the sale of finished excisable goods manufactured out of the consumption of the raw materials so purchased has not been doubted and hence it may kindly be held accordingly. 9. For that your petitioner craves the right to put additional grounds and / or to alter / amend / modify the present

M/S. HINDISTHAN ENGINEEING & INDISTRIES LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -5 KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.952/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

bogus purchase, the addition so made is bad in law since the sale of finished excisable goods manufactured out of the consumption of the raw materials so purchased has not been doubted and hence it may kindly be held accordingly. 9. For that your petitioner craves the right to put additional grounds and / or to alter / amend / modify the present

DCIT, CC-2(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BALAJI AGRO PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Central Circle-2(4), M/S Balaji Agro Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, A5-6 Sarkarpool Maheshtala, 4Th Floor, 110 Shantipally, E.M. New Budge Budge Trunk Rd. Vs. Bypass, Kolkata-700107 Gopalpur 24 Paraganas South West Bengal Kolkata-700143, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcb9078M Assessee By : Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2025

deducted at source. 2.3. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that in this case the loans ITA No.842 KOL 2025 Balaji Agro Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 2019-20 were received by the assessee from three parties aggregating to ₹100,78,804/- and interest of ₹10,15,049/- was paid thereon. We note that