SATYA PRAKASH SHARMA ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, KOLKATA - 12, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.4,43 cr. We note that the AO had issued “reasons to reopen” vide letter dated 10.08.2015 (refer pages 42-43 paper book) and pursuant to which the assessee filed his reply vide letter dated 31.08.2015 (refer pages 44-48 paper book) and AO thereafter issued notice u/s. 142(1) dated 15.10.2015 pursuant

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

purchases (ii)\nAddition in respect of unexplained cash credit of ₹1.00 crore and (Iii)\naddition on account of bogus interest expenses of ₹54,795/-, by\nassessing the income at ₹1,91,28,960/-.\n06. In the appellate proceedings, the Id. CIT (A) allowed the appeal of\nthe assessee by directing the Id. AO to delete the additions. However,\nthe legal

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. VEDA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

108 ITR 885 (Mad) CIT vs K.S.Venkatasubbaiah Reddiar reported in 221 ITR 18 (Mad) G.Venkataswami Naidu and Co. vs CIT reported in 35 ITR 594 (SC) CIT vs Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd reported in 100 ITR 706 (SC) Dalhousie Investment Trust Co. Ltd vs CIT reported in 68 ITR 486 (SC) 5.7.3. The ld AR further heavily relied

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. VEDA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

108 ITR 885 (Mad) CIT vs K.S.Venkatasubbaiah Reddiar reported in 221 ITR 18 (Mad) G.Venkataswami Naidu and Co. vs CIT reported in 35 ITR 594 (SC) CIT vs Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd reported in 100 ITR 706 (SC) Dalhousie Investment Trust Co. Ltd vs CIT reported in 68 ITR 486 (SC) 5.7.3. The ld AR further heavily relied

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND CONCAST PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Balmukund Concast Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Cc 4(3) 108 Kalyani Complex, Exhibition Aaykar Bhawan, Kolkata-700069 Vs. Road, Patna-800001, Bihar West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaacb9503G

108 Kalyani complex, Exhibition Vs. West Bengal Road, Patna-800001, Bihar (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Manish Rastogi, AR Revenue by : Shri Dheeraj, DR Date of hearing: 09.02.2026 Date of pronouncement: 15.04.2026 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: In these appeals, one appeal is filed by the assessee and other are Cross appeals filed against the order

BALMUKUND CONCAST PVT. LTD.,,PATNA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Balmukund Concast Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Cc 4(3) 108 Kalyani Complex, Exhibition Aaykar Bhawan, Kolkata-700069 Vs. Road, Patna-800001, Bihar West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaacb9503G

108 Kalyani complex, Exhibition Vs. West Bengal Road, Patna-800001, Bihar (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Manish Rastogi, AR Revenue by : Shri Dheeraj, DR Date of hearing: 09.02.2026 Date of pronouncement: 15.04.2026 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: In these appeals, one appeal is filed by the assessee and other are Cross appeals filed against the order

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND CONCAST PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Balmukund Concast Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Cc 4(3) 108 Kalyani Complex, Exhibition Aaykar Bhawan, Kolkata-700069 Vs. Road, Patna-800001, Bihar West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaacb9503G

108 Kalyani complex, Exhibition Vs. West Bengal Road, Patna-800001, Bihar (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Manish Rastogi, AR Revenue by : Shri Dheeraj, DR Date of hearing: 09.02.2026 Date of pronouncement: 15.04.2026 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: In these appeals, one appeal is filed by the assessee and other are Cross appeals filed against the order

NASIR AHMED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 33(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2009-10

108/- is confirmed.” Being aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee came in second appeal before us. 10. Before us Ld.AR submitted that the goods were also purchased from Mr. Samiran Dutta in the AY 2010-11 which is not before us for an amount of ₹6,05,412/- and the same was added by AO as 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

purchases (ii) Addition in respect of unexplained cash credit of ₹1.00 crore and (Iii) addition on account of bogus interest expenses of ₹54,795/-, by assessing the income at ₹1,91,28,960/-. 06. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by directing the ld. AO to delete the additions. However, the legal

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

purchases (ii) Addition in respect of unexplained cash credit of ₹1.00 crore and (Iii) addition on account of bogus interest expenses of ₹54,795/-, by assessing the income at ₹1,91,28,960/-. 06. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by directing the ld. AO to delete the additions. However, the legal

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

purchases (ii) Addition in respect of unexplained cash credit of ₹1.00 crore and (Iii) addition on account of bogus interest expenses of ₹54,795/-, by assessing the income at ₹1,91,28,960/-. 06. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by directing the ld. AO to delete the additions. However, the legal

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

purchases (ii) Addition in respect of unexplained cash credit of ₹1.00 crore and (Iii) addition on account of bogus interest expenses of ₹54,795/-, by assessing the income at ₹1,91,28,960/-. 06. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by directing the ld. AO to delete the additions. However, the legal

KESHAV SARAF,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-15, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

108 : ASSESSMENT ORDER The assessee filed his return of income electronically vide acknowledgement No.660924690120815 for the Asst. Year 2015-16 on 12/08/2015 declaring a total income of Rs.9,38,400/-.The return was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notice u/s 143(2) dated 29.07.2016 was issued and served on 16.08.2016. (2) The assessee maintained Bank account with AXIS Bank

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]

Section 14A of the Act. We observe that though the above decision has been rendered in the context of disallowance of interest attributable to funds invested towards tax free income but the same analogy is applicable for considering the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii). Therefore we are inclined to hold that 17 I.T.A. Nos.1068 & 1166/Kol/2017

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]

Section 14A of the Act. We observe that though the above decision has been rendered in the context of disallowance of interest attributable to funds invested towards tax free income but the same analogy is applicable for considering the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii). Therefore we are inclined to hold that 17 I.T.A. Nos.1068 & 1166/Kol/2017

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]

Section 14A of the Act. We observe that though the above decision has been rendered in the context of disallowance of interest attributable to funds invested towards tax free income but the same analogy is applicable for considering the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii). Therefore we are inclined to hold that 17 I.T.A. Nos.1068 & 1166/Kol/2017

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]

Section 14A of the Act. We observe that though the above decision has been rendered in the context of disallowance of interest attributable to funds invested towards tax free income but the same analogy is applicable for considering the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii). Therefore we are inclined to hold that 17 I.T.A. Nos.1068 & 1166/Kol/2017

M/S VISHAL IMPEX,KOLKATA vs. THE ITO, WD-33(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Bogus Purchase of Rs 19792/- 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(Appeals) has erred in dismissing the appeal in respect of disallowance of Rs 619108/- without reasonable consideration.” 3. First issue in ground No.1 is general in nature and does not require any separate adjudication. 4. It was observed