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.

bogus purchases. In this haste, Ld. AO even forgot to note that the present assessee apart from making purchase from M/s. SDPL has also made sales to M/s. SDPL for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13 which has been accepted by the AO. For AY 2011-12 where the alleged purchases from M/s. SDPL is Rs.2

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.

bogus purchases. In this haste, Ld. AO even forgot to note that the present assessee apart from making purchase from M/s. SDPL has also made sales to M/s. SDPL for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13 which has been accepted by the AO. For AY 2011-12 where the alleged purchases from M/s. SDPL is Rs.2

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. ABHINANDAN INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of the revenue and the Cross objection of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

bogus or contrived transaction is, the net result of purchase and sale, and not the entire sales. Ld. CIT(A) also noted that assessee has already shown the net result of purchase and sale of commodities transaction as income in its return and thus deleted the addition of Rs.2,99,85,863/-. However, Ld. CIT(A) directed

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RANGE-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

depreciation become infractuous.” 44. After considering the rival contentions and perusing the material on record as placed before us including the appellate order, we find that in the remand report the AO has not objected the nature of expenses but simply stated that the expenses has resulted into in the benefit of capital in nature. We note that

DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

depreciation become infractuous.” 44. After considering the rival contentions and perusing the material on record as placed before us including the appellate order, we find that in the remand report the AO has not objected the nature of expenses but simply stated that the expenses has resulted into in the benefit of capital in nature. We note that

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RANGE-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

depreciation become infractuous.” 44. After considering the rival contentions and perusing the material on record as placed before us including the appellate order, we find that in the remand report the AO has not objected the nature of expenses but simply stated that the expenses has resulted into in the benefit of capital in nature. We note that

DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

depreciation become infractuous.” 44. After considering the rival contentions and perusing the material on record as placed before us including the appellate order, we find that in the remand report the AO has not objected the nature of expenses but simply stated that the expenses has resulted into in the benefit of capital in nature. We note that

ACIT, CIRCLE - 11(2) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SAFAL PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

Bogus Purchase related to the earlier issue of undisclosed stock, which is related in nature. The Ld. CIT(A) should have referred this issue also to the AO for verification and furnishing Remand Report. 6. That the appellant craves to add, alter/or amend any of the grounds of appeal during the course of hearing.” 3. Brief facts of the case

ACIT, CIR-14(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ULTRATECH NATHDWARA CEMENT LTD.(KNOWN AS M/S BINANI CEMENT LTD.), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

purchase of machinery from Sri Maa Sarda Fabrication Engineering Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs. 2,86,51,800/- is bogus. I.T.A. Nos.: 1726/KOL/2014 & 152/KOL/2018 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2013-14 I.T.A. Nos.: 611/KOL/2015 & 470/KOL/2018 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2013-14 M/s. UltraTech Nathdwara Cement Ltd. (Earlier known as M/s. Binani Cement Ltd.) Now UltraTech Cement Limited. 2.1 On the facts

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ULTRATECH NATHDWARA CEMENT LTD. (KNOWN AS M/S. BINANI CEMENT LTD.), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

purchase of machinery from Sri Maa Sarda Fabrication Engineering Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs. 2,86,51,800/- is bogus. I.T.A. Nos.: 1726/KOL/2014 & 152/KOL/2018 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2013-14 I.T.A. Nos.: 611/KOL/2015 & 470/KOL/2018 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2013-14 M/s. UltraTech Nathdwara Cement Ltd. (Earlier known as M/s. Binani Cement Ltd.) Now UltraTech Cement Limited. 2.1 On the facts

M/S. ULTRATECH NATHDWARA CEMENT LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. BINANI CEMENT LTD.,),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

purchase of machinery from Sri Maa Sarda Fabrication Engineering Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs. 2,86,51,800/- is bogus. I.T.A. Nos.: 1726/KOL/2014 & 152/KOL/2018 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2013-14 I.T.A. Nos.: 611/KOL/2015 & 470/KOL/2018 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2013-14 M/s. UltraTech Nathdwara Cement Ltd. (Earlier known as M/s. Binani Cement Ltd.) Now UltraTech Cement Limited. 2.1 On the facts

BINANI CEMENT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-XXVIII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

purchase of machinery from Sri Maa Sarda Fabrication Engineering Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs. 2,86,51,800/- is bogus. I.T.A. Nos.: 1726/KOL/2014 & 152/KOL/2018 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2013-14 I.T.A. Nos.: 611/KOL/2015 & 470/KOL/2018 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2013-14 M/s. UltraTech Nathdwara Cement Ltd. (Earlier known as M/s. Binani Cement Ltd.) Now UltraTech Cement Limited. 2.1 On the facts

M/S VINAYAK FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA

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

depreciation allowance or any other\nallowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in\nthis section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment\nyear.\n• It may be noted here that the words used in Sec 147, is \"if the AO has\nreason to believe\" and not merely \"If AO believes

ITO, WARD-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S DREAMZ LIFE CARE NURSING & DIAGNOSTIC CENTRE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

bogus share capital. Income assessed at Rs. 2,84,86,840/-. 5. Aggrieved, both the assessees preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A) against the additions made by ld. AOs and filed the details of the share subscribers and their financial statements and ld. CIT(A) was satisfied with those details and deleted the additions made

ITO, WARD - 3(2) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. DREAMZ MOVIES & ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

bogus share capital. Income assessed at Rs. 2,84,86,840/-. 5. Aggrieved, both the assessees preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A) against the additions made by ld. AOs and filed the details of the share subscribers and their financial statements and ld. CIT(A) was satisfied with those details and deleted the additions made

AMAN TANNERY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 29(1),, KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

purchase of pollution control equipment worth Rs. 33,75,250. This transaction was doubted entirely in the first-round proceedings and the 100% depreciation claimed thereon had been denied on the ground that the existence of plant and machinery could not be allegedly established. The assessee supplied documents indicating the installation of said equipment; certificate issued by the Small Tanners

ITO, KOLKATA vs. AJIT KUMAR MINDA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and cross objections of the\nassessee are dismissed

depreciation was examined\nclosely and allowed after appreciation of law and also making it clear that\nreassessment/revisit on the above issue would fall within the realm of\nchange of opinion, the action of the assessing officer in proceeding to make\nthe reassessment is thus unsustainable. [Emphasis supplied]\n7.7. The judicial precedents relied upon by the appellant has been perused.\nThe

BIRENDRANATH SAMANTA,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIR-2, BURDWAN, BURDWAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 227/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Birendra Nath Samanta Assistant Commissioner Of Anandapally, Sripally Vs Income Tax, Cirlce-2, Burdwan Burdwan - 713103 [Pan : Akaps8240C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 12/05/2022 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 253 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. In The Condonation Application, The Assessee Stated That An Affidavit & An Application Has Been Filed Wherein It Has Been Submitted That The Impugned Order Was Passed On 12/05/2022 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Ex-Parte. The Said Appellate Order Was Sent Through E- Mail At Debudan1975@Gmail.Com, Which Belonged To Shri Debabrata Dan, A Resident Of Burdwan & Looking After The Income Tax Matters

Depreciation is a reduction in the value of an asset over time, in particular, to wear and tear. Therefore, the deduction claimed by the assessee in previous assessment years was due to the deprecation of the machine and not on the interest paid by it.[Para 15] Moreover, the purchase effected from the KJC is in respect of plant, machinery