BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI 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.

841 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 10(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,780Delhi2,540Kolkata841Jaipur643Ahmedabad575Chennai531Surat415Pune392Bangalore360Chandigarh271Hyderabad227Indore202Raipur157Karnataka126Rajkot122Amritsar110Nagpur107Lucknow75Visakhapatnam72Guwahati67Cuttack66Cochin65Calcutta53Agra46Jodhpur41Allahabad34Patna29Ranchi24Telangana18Dehradun16Jabalpur13Varanasi7SC6Panaji5Orissa2Gauhati2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Bombay1Rajasthan1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 14891Section 14788Addition to Income84Section 6870Section 143(3)60Section 10(38)27Unexplained Cash Credit27Section 25026Section 143(2)

INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S STANDARD LEATHER PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2620/KOL/2013[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Sept 2016AY 2010-2011

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

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

bogus, provisions of section 40A(3) did not apply. viii) In the light of the above observation & findings and on the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the Assessing officer was not justified in making the addition of Rs.3,23,88,960/- under section 40A(3)/40A(3A) of the Act. ix) In view

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALAJEE MINI STEELS & REROLLING PRIVATE LIMITED , PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Showing 1–20 of 841 · Page 1 of 43

...
23
Disallowance23
Section 26320
Limitation/Time-bar17
ITA 1688/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed
ITAT Kolkata
15 Dec 2025
AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am\Nand\Nshripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm\Nita Nos.1688 To 1691/Kol/2025\N(Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2018-19)\Nita No. 1725/Kol/2025\N(Assessment Year: 2016-17)\Ndcit, Central Circle 4(3)\Nbalajee Mini Steels & Rerolling\Naaykar Bhawan Poorva, 110,\Nprivate Limited\Nshantipally, Kolkata-700107,\N603, Shantikunj Apartment,\Nkolkata\Nphulwanipatna, G.P.O.800001,\N(Appellant)\Nvs.\Npatna\Npan No. Aabcb7265J\N(Respondent)\Nassessee By\N: Shri Manish Rastogi, Ar\Nrevenue By\N: S/Shri Praveen Kishore &\Npradeep Dungdung, Drs\Ndate Of Hearing:\N01.12.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 15.12.2025\Norder\Nper Rajesh Kumar, Am:\Nthese Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Kolkata-27 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 13.04.2025 For The Ays 2015-16 To 2018-19.\N2.\Nas The Facts & Issues In All The Appeals Of Revenue Are Exactly Identical, Hence, For The Sake Of Brevity, We Take Ita No. 1688/Kol/2025 For A.Y. 2015-16 & Decide The Issue Accordingly.\Nα.Υ. 2015-16\N3.\Nthe Only Issue Raised By The Revenue Is Against The Deletion Of Addition By The Id. Cit (A) Of ₹1,07,03,817/- As Made By The Id. Ao On Account Of Suppression Of Income In Respect Of Bogus Purchases.\N3.

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 147

10 of the assessment order. Further, it is observed that in case the purchases are excluded from the trading account, the corresponding sales would also have to be excluded. Hence, this exercise would reduce the income returned by the assessee. Therefore, it can be inferred that percentage disallowance of the purchases would amount to double taxation as the assessee

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALAJEE MINI STEELS & REROLLING PRIVATE LIMITED , PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1725/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Praveen Kishore &
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 147

10 of the assessment order. Further, it is observed that in case the purchases are excluded from the trading account, the corresponding sales would also have to be excluded. Hence, this exercise would reduce the income returned by the assessee. Therefore, it can be inferred that percentage disallowance of the purchases would amount to double taxation as the assessee

OM FORGING & ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE PR. CIT-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals are allowed

ITA 509/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Md.Usman, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 263

10 taxmann.com 138 (Delhi) - In this case the issue before Hon'ble Delhi High Court was as to whether addition could be made under section 69C of the Act in respect of expenditures debited in the books of accounts but were found to be unauthenticated. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that the focus of section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND CEMENT & ROOFINGS PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1703/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Pandey, DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 69A

10 of the assessment order. Further, it is observed that in case the purchases are excluded from the trading account, the corresponding sales would also have to be excluded. Hence, this exercise would reduce the income returned by the assessee. Therefore, it can be inferred that percentage disallowance of the purchases would amount to double Balmukund Lease Fin Private Limited

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND SPONGE AND IRON PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1596/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Pandey, DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 69A

10 of the assessment order. Further, it is observed that in case the purchases are excluded from the trading account, the corresponding sales would also have to be excluded. Hence, this exercise would reduce the income returned by the assessee. Therefore, it can be inferred that percentage disallowance of the purchases would amount to double Balmukund Lease Fin Private Limited

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND CEMENT & ROOFINGS PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1699/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Pandey, DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 69A

10 of the assessment order. Further, it is observed that in case the purchases are excluded from the trading account, the corresponding sales would also have to be excluded. Hence, this exercise would reduce the income returned by the assessee. Therefore, it can be inferred that percentage disallowance of the purchases would amount to double Balmukund Lease Fin Private Limited

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND CEMENT & ROOFINGS PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1702/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Pandey, DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 69A

10 of the assessment order. Further, it is observed that in case the purchases are excluded from the trading account, the corresponding sales would also have to be excluded. Hence, this exercise would reduce the income returned by the assessee. Therefore, it can be inferred that percentage disallowance of the purchases would amount to double Balmukund Lease Fin Private Limited

GOPAL & SONS HUF,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 32(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1701/KOL/2024[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2025AY 2006-2007

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

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Pandey, DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 69A

10 of the assessment order. Further, it is observed that in case the purchases are excluded from the trading account, the corresponding sales would also have to be excluded. Hence, this exercise would reduce the income returned by the assessee. Therefore, it can be inferred that percentage disallowance of the purchases would amount to double Balmukund Lease Fin Private Limited

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

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

ITA 1135/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Himat Singhka, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 263

section 263 of the Income Tax Act. 6. The facts of the case may be stated quite shortly as follows: The assessee, is an individual, and filed his return of income for the AY 2010-11 on 09.10.2010, declaring total income at Rs 3,82,968 /-. The said return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income

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

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

ITA 1134/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Himat Singhka, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 263

section 263 of the Income Tax Act. 6. The facts of the case may be stated quite shortly as follows: The assessee, is an individual, and filed his return of income for the AY 2010-11 on 09.10.2010, declaring total income at Rs 3,82,968 /-. The said return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income

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

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

ITA 1136/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Himat Singhka, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 263

section 263 of the Income Tax Act. 6. The facts of the case may be stated quite shortly as follows: The assessee, is an individual, and filed his return of income for the AY 2010-11 on 09.10.2010, declaring total income at Rs 3,82,968 /-. The said return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income

ACIT, CIRCLE - 34, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. BHAWARLAL ALOKE KUMAR , KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 779/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2014-15 Acit, Cicle-34, V/S. Bhawarlal Aloke Kumar Aayakar Poorva, 7Th P-12, New Howrah Bridge Approach Road, 4Th Floor, Floor, 110, Shantipally, Kolkatka-107 Kolkta-700001 [Pan No.Aadfb 0620 N] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant None ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 04-02-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 03-05-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee‘S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata’S Order Dated 23.01.2018 Passed In Case No.224/Cit(A)-10/C-34/14-15/16-17/Kol, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Case Called Twice. None Appears At The Assessee’S Behest Despite The Registry Having Sent An Rpad Notice. It Is Accordingly Proceeded Ex Parte. 2. Revenue’S Sole Substantive Grievance Raised In The Instant Appeal Seeks To Challenge Correctness Of Cit(A)’S Action Partly Upholding Assessing Officer’S Findings Disallowing Assessee’S Purchase(S) Of ₹3,22,28,000/- Only To The Extent Of 15% Vide Impugned Following Detailed Discussion:- “06. Findings &. Decision:

Section 143(3)

10 DTR (Jp. Trib.) 0281 "11. ----------Undisputedly, it is not a/ways within the control of a purchaser to produce the suppliers before the AO to establish the genuineness of claim of purchases. What is expected from a prudent purchaser to establish genuineness of claim of purchases is furnishing of purchase bill containing al! the necessary details of the transaction, payment

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALAJEE MINI STEELS & REROLLING PRIVATE LIMITED , PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1691/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am\Nand\Nshripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm\Nita Nos.1688 To 1691/Kol/2025\N(Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2018-19)\Nita No. 1725/Kol/2025\N(Assessment Year: 2016-17)\Ndcit, Central Circle 4(3)\Nbalajee Mini Steels & Rerolling\Naaykar Bhawan Poorva, 110,\Nprivate Limited\Nshantipally, Kolkata-700107,\N603, Shantikunj Apartment,\Nkolkata\Nphulwanipatna, G.P.O.800001,\Nvs.\N(Appellant)\Npatna\N(Respondent)\Npan No. Aabcb7265J\Nassessee By\N:\Nshri Manish Rastogi, Ar\Nrevenue By\N:\Ns/Shri Praveen Kishore &\Npradeep Dungdung, Drs\Ndate Of Hearing:\N01.12.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N15.12.2025\Norder\Nper Rajesh Kumar, Am:\Nthese Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Kolkata-27 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)"] Dated 13.04.2025 For The Ays 2015-16 To 2018-19.\Nas The Facts & Issues In All The Appeals Of Revenue Are Exactly Identical, Hence, For The Sake Of Brevity, We Take Ita No. 1688/Kol/2025 For A.Y. 2015-16 & Decide The Issue Accordingly.\Nα.Υ. 2015-16\Npage 2\Nita Nos.1688 To 1691/Kol/2025&1725/Kol/2025\Nbalajee Mini Steels & Rerolling Private Limited; Ays 2015-16 To 2018-19\Nita No. 1688/Kol/2025\N3.\Nthe Only Issue Raised By The Revenue Is Against The Deletion Of Addition By The Id. Cit (A) Of ₹1,07,03,817/- As Made By The Id. Ao On Account Of Suppression Of Income In Respect Of Bogus Purchases.\N3.

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 147

10 of the assessment order.\nFurther, it is observed that in case the purchases are excluded from the trading\naccount, the corresponding sales would also have to be excluded. Hence, this\nexercise would reduce the income returned by the assessee. Therefore, it can\nbe inferred that percentage disallowance of the purchases would amount to\ndouble taxation as the assessee

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. BALAJEE MINI STEELS & REROLLING PRIVATE LIMITED , PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1689/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am\Nand\Nshripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm\Nita Nos.1688 To 1691/Kol/2025\N(Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2018-19)\Nita No. 1725/Kol/2025\N(Assessment Year: 2016-17)\Ndcit, Central Circle 4(3)\Nbalajee Mini Steels & Rerolling\Naaykar Bhawan Poorva, 110,\Nprivate Limited\Nshantipally, Kolkata-700107,\N603, Shantikunj Apartment,\Nkolkata\Nvs.\Nphulwanipatna, G.P.O.800001,\N(Appellant)\Npatna\N(Respondent)\Npan No. Aabcb7265J\Nassessee By\Nshri Manish Rastogi, Ar\Nrevenue By\Ns/Shri Praveen Kishore &\Npradeep Dungdung, Drs\Ndate Of Hearing: 01.12.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 15.12.2025\Norder\Nper Rajesh Kumar, Am:\Nthese Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Orders Of\Nthe Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Kolkata-27 (Hereinafter\Nreferred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)"] Dated 13.04.2025 For The Ays 2015-16\Nto 2018-19.\Nas The Facts & Issues In All The Appeals Of Revenue Are Exactly\Nidentical, Hence, For The Sake Of Brevity, We Take Ita No.\N1688/Kol/2025 For A.Y. 2015-16 & Decide The Issue Accordingly.\Nα.Υ. 2015-16\Npage 2\Nita Nos.1688 To 1691/Kol/2025&1725/Kol/2025\Nbalajee Mini Steels & Rerolling Private Limited; Ays 2015-16 To 2018-19\Nita No. 1688/Kol/2025\N3.\Nthe Only Issue Raised By The Revenue Is Against The Deletion Of\Naddition By The Id. Cit (A) Of ₹1,07,03,817/- As Made By The Id. Ao\Non Account Of Suppression Of Income In Respect Of Bogus Purchases.\N3.

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 147

10 of the assessment order.\nFurther, it is observed that in case the purchases are excluded from the trading\naccount, the corresponding sales would also have to be excluded. Hence, this\nexercise would reduce the income returned by the assessee. Therefore, it can\nbe inferred that percentage disallowance of the purchases would amount to\ndouble taxation as the assessee

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALAJEE MINI STEELS & REROLLING PRIVATE LIMITED , PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1690/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am\Nand\Nshripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm\Nita Nos.1688 To 1691/Kol/2025\N(Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2018-19)\Nita No. 1725/Kol/2025\N(Assessment Year: 2016-17)\Ndcit, Central Circle 4(3)\Nbalajee Mini Steels & Rerolling\Naaykar Bhawan Poorva, 110,\Nprivate Limited\Nshantipally, Kolkata-700107,\N603, Shantikunj Apartment,\Nkolkata\Nphulwanipatna, G.P.O.800001,\N(Appellant)\Nvs.\Npatna\N(Respondent)\Npan No. Aabcb7265J\Nassessee By : Shri Manish Rastogi, Ar\Nrevenue By : S/Shri Praveen Kishore &\Npradeep Dungdung, Drs\Ndate Of Hearing: 01.12.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 15.12.2025\Norder\Nper Rajesh Kumar, Am:\Nthese Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Orders Of\Nthe Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Kolkata-27 (Hereinafter\Nreferred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)"] Dated 13.04.2025 For The Ays 2015-16\Nto 2018-19.\Nas The Facts & Issues In All The Appeals Of Revenue Are Exactly\Nidentical, Hence, For The Sake Of Brevity, We Take Ita No.\N1688/Kol/2025 For A.Y. 2015-16 & Decide The Issue Accordingly.\Nα.Υ. 2015-16\Npage 2\Nita Nos.1688 To 1691/Kol/2025&1725/Kol/2025\Nbalajee Mini Steels & Rerolling Private Limited; Ays 2015-16 To 2018-19\Nita No. 1688/Kol/2025\N3.\Nthe Only Issue Raised By The Revenue Is Against The Deletion Of\Naddition By The Id. Cit (A) Of ₹1,07,03,817/- As Made By The Id. Ao\Non Account Of Suppression Of Income In Respect Of Bogus Purchases.\N3.

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Praveen Kishore &
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 147

10 of the assessment order.\nFurther, it is observed that in case the purchases are excluded from the trading\naccount, the corresponding sales would also have to be excluded. Hence, this\nexercise would reduce the income returned by the assessee. Therefore, it can\nbe inferred that percentage disallowance of the purchases would amount to\ndouble taxation as the assessee

SRI MALAY MONDAL,BURDWAN vs. I.T.O WD - 2(2),ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 903/KOL/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Sept 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 40A(3)

10 11.1 The provision of Section 40A(3) was inserted by the Finance Act 1968. The purpose for bringing the section was mentioned in the explanatory note Para 73 which read as under : It will be pertinent to go into the intention behind introduction of provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act at this juncture. We find that

SHRI PRABIR KUMAR MULLICK,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD - 3(1), ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1603/KOL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2008-09 Prabir Kumar Mullick V/S. Income Tax Officer, Searsol C.S.Shop, Ward-3(1), G.T. Road Shisubagan (Kalali Gali) (West), Asansol Ranigunj (Burdwan) [Pan No.Ajepm 7142 G] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 255(3)Section 260ASection 40A(3)

10. On the other hand the ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the lower authorities. 11. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. After examining on the facts of the case and hearing the rival contentions of both the parties we find that the AO has disallowed the purchases where the payment was exceeding

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

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

ITA 934/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

Section Addition Name of the parties 1. 2008-09 147 2,780,000 Vitrag Jewels 2. 2010-11 147 3,241,440 Kangan Jewels P. Ltd. 3. 2011-12 147 3,899,463 Kangan Jewels P. Ltd. 4. 2012-13 147 3,539,363 Kangan Jewels P. Ltd. 5. 2014-15 147 3,750,000 Arihant Exports

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

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

ITA 932/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

Section Addition Name of the parties 1. 2008-09 147 2,780,000 Vitrag Jewels 2. 2010-11 147 3,241,440 Kangan Jewels P. Ltd. 3. 2011-12 147 3,899,463 Kangan Jewels P. Ltd. 4. 2012-13 147 3,539,363 Kangan Jewels P. Ltd. 5. 2014-15 147 3,750,000 Arihant Exports