MRS. PREMLATA TEKRIWAL ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 10, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri A. T. Varkey

bogus purchase. Accordingly, Rs.1,62,405/- is added to total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated

MRS. PREMLATA TEKRIWAL ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 10, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri A. T. Varkey

bogus purchase. Accordingly, Rs.1,62,405/- is added to total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated

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

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri A. T. Varkey

bogus purchase. Accordingly, Rs.1,62,405/- is added to total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MAGNETIC NIRYAT PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 347/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,......Appellant Central Circle-2(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 4Th Floor, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700107 -Vs.- M/S. Magnetic Niryat Pvt. Limited,............Respondent 9, Vivekanand Road, Kolkata-700007 [Pan:Aagcm4047E] Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Sudipta Guha, Cit (Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

Penalty proceeding us/ 271(1)(c) is initiated against the assessee for concealing Rs.30,02,54,353/-. In view of the documents and clarifications filed as well as discussions made as above, the total income of the assessee is computed as under:- Total income as per return : Rs.59,652/- Add. Bogus creditors for goods (As discussed in para 2.4 above

M/S. OM STEEL INDIA,HOWRAH vs. ACIT/ITO, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12

bogus purchases, thereby the penalty proceedings became infructuous as the penalty proceeding was initiated on the ground of alleged bogus

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

M/S M.B. JEWELLERS & SONS,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-44, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S M.B. Jewellers & Sons -Vs- Dcit, Circle-44, Kolkata [Pan: Aaefm 7973 J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

bogus stock of diamond in their books of accounts which are shown to be purchased from foreign concerns. The diamonds shown to be purchased/imported from foreign concerns are shown to be sold to these concerns who take purchase bills from their concerns without actual delivery of diamonds. The payments made through cheques or RTGS by these concerns get utilized

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

purchase transactions amounting to Rs. 34,59,840/- should be treated as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C and added back to your income.” 3.2. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ld. AO’) in para 7.2 has held that since the assessee has herself accepted that she had indulged in bogus transactions whose sole purpose was to evade taxes, therefore

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

purchase transactions amounting to Rs. 34,59,840/- should be treated as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C and added back to your income.” 3.2. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ld. AO’) in para 7.2 has held that since the assessee has herself accepted that she had indulged in bogus transactions whose sole purpose was to evade taxes, therefore

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

JAIN INFRA PROJECTS LTD.(SINCE TAKEN OVER BANGAL CONSTRUCTION CO.),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: : Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

purchase of machinery of Rs. 1,08,16,000/- in Financial Year 2005-06 and claimed bogus depreciation of Rs. 8,11,200/- and claimed bogus machinery hire charges payable of Rs. 11,46,700/- in Financial Year 2005-06 from M/s D.K.Enterprises. M/s D.K.Enterprises was claimed to be the proprietary concern of Manoj Kumar Jain & Sons (HUF). The assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)- 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AUXINITE SUPPLIERS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Auxinite Suppliers Private Tax (Cc)-3(1) Limited 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan 44/2A Jain Tower, Hazra Road, Vs. Poorva, 110 Shantipally, Kolkata- Kolkata-700019, West Bengal 700017, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecb3974H Co No. 11/Kol/2025 (Arising In Ita No. 139/Kol/2025 For A.Y. 2019-20) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Auxinite Suppliers Private Tax (Cc)-3(1) Limited 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan 44/2A Jain Tower, Hazra Road, Vs. Poorva, 110 Shantipally, Kolkata- Kolkata-700019, West Bengal 700017, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri Rajeeva Kumar & Giridhar Dhelia, Ars Revenue By : Shri V. Vidhyadhar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.04.2026

bogus shareholders, the Revenue can reopen their individual assessment and addition cannot be made in the hands of the recipient company: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the assessment order as the transaction entered into by the assessee was a scheme for laundering black money into white money

M/S. SAHA & MONDAL CONSTRUCTION,PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - HALDIA, PURBA MEDINIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of disallowance of truck hire charges, bogus purchases and staff

IDEAL UNEMPLOYED ENGINEERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,COOCHBIHAR vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2, JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2010-11

bogus purchases for Rs.18,61,658/- At the time of assessment, AO initiated the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) for the concealment

M D DIESEL SPARES,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-47, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.1430/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M D Diesel Spares………..………………………… ........................……Appellant 7/12, Kings Road, Howrah-711101. [Pan: Aakfm7649F] Vs. Ito, Ward-47(2), Kolkata..................…................…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tibrewal & Saurabh Gupta, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Prabir Gupta Choudhury, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 26, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 03, 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 28.10.2023 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 Addition Of Rs.18,85,520/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 69C Of The Act On Account Of Bogus Purchases. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Firm Is Involved In The Business Of Spare Parts Of The Machinery. The Assessee Firm For The Year Under Consideration Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.45,150/-. The Said Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The

bogus purchase claim of the assessee and added with the returned income of the assessee on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the I.T. Act, 1961. Therefore, the said sum of Rs. 18,85,520/- is considered as undisclosed income of the assessee and assessment is made accordingly. Penalty