ACIT, CIR-1, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR vs. SHRI RAKESH KUMAR CHOWDHURY, DURGAPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

bogus and false debit. Keeping in view that the appellant is working as contractor with M/s. Hindustan Steel works Construction Limited and MI5 Durgapur Steel Plant ITA No.1810/Kol/16 & 422/ol/2017 A.Y. 2009-10 ACIT Cir-1 DGP Vs. Sh Rakesh Kr. Chowdhury Page 8 which are government under taking, therefore, no payment can be made to the appellant without work, therefore

SHYAM METALICS AMD ENERGY LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2014-15 Shyam Metalics & Engery Ltd…...………..............................……….……Appellant 83, Trinity Tower, 7Th Floor, Topsia, Kol-700046, [Pan: Aahcs5842A] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata…………………………...……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Praveen Kishore, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 15, 2025 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.04.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

purchased and sold 5,45,000 shares of UIL during the year which yielded short term capital loss of Rs.73,26,040/-. Apart from the shares of UIL, the assessee have transacted in other listed shares as well in which it incurred short term capital loss of Rs.1,16,27,717/-, with aggregate quantum of gross short term capital loss

ITO,WD-12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S S. B. PIGMENTS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.324/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10)

purchases made from them cannot be treated as Bogus or not genuine by disregarding all other overwhelming evidences furnished to the AO and brought on record. We note that the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. Diagnostics v. CIT in ITA No. 153 of 2004 and the judgment of the coordinate Bench of ITAT, Kolkata

BLB CABLES & CONDUCTORS(P)LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -5,, KOLKATA

In the result, ground No.2 is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year:2008-09

purchase and sales registers were also submitted in the form of the paper book which is placed at pages 76 to 87. The Board resolution passed by the company for the transactions in commodity was placed at page 88 of the paper book. On the other hand the ld. DR relied in the order of the lower authorities. 4.1 From

MANISH PARASRAMPURIA,KOLKATA vs. A.O., NFAC / D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-43, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

bogus or Sham transaction which Is nothing but a colourable device to defraud the revenue and to channelize the fund from undisclosed sources to a legitimate form of income. 7.1.1 In view of above, the entire sale consideration (net) of Rs.7,31,417/- (Sale consideration shown under LTCG as enumerated above) is treated as Unexplained Cash Credit

ACIT, CIR-40, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SHYAMLAL IRON & STEEL CO., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, J.M. &Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

bogus. Neither is there any finding that the expenses debited in the HO account are not supported with bills and vouchers and are unreasonable and unverifiable. (v) It is not uncommon that businessmen will compromise with profitability in certain transactions keeping in view the long term business interest as in the case of the appellant with Tata Sons. Where absence

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

115 persons. The details of which are available at page 7-9 of the paper book and as stated by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, these are mostly farmers who sold their agricultural produce of rice to the assessee and the details contain names, addresses and amount outstanding to be paid. We note that the ld. Assessing Officer

M/S. SPML INFRA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1228/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

bogus expenditures. The ld. Counsel submitted before us that assessment order framed by Assessing Officer is not as per the scheme of section 142 of the Act, as explained above, therefore order passed by Assessing Officer should be quashed. The ld Counsel further submitted before us that it is also the matter of fact that both the projects undertaken

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SPML INFRA LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1228/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

bogus expenditures. The ld. Counsel submitted before us that assessment order framed by Assessing Officer is not as per the scheme of section 142 of the Act, as explained above, therefore order passed by Assessing Officer should be quashed. The ld Counsel further submitted before us that it is also the matter of fact that both the projects undertaken

DCIT CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA vs. ZEN STOCK AND SHARE BROKING PVT LTD, KOLKATA

purchased and sold shares during that period. I also find that\ninvestigation was carried out by SEBI on 301 entities based on reference\nby the Income Tax department. After the investigation notices were issued\non 109 entities only as no adverse inference was drawn against the\nappellant company during investigation.\n7.4 Neither there is adverse statement on record

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(3), KOLKATA vs. M/S. GRD COMMODITIES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the cross objections of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] It(Ss)A Nos.120 To123/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2012-13

bogus transaction, the disclosures made could not be said to be all "true" and "full". Relying upon the said judgment the High Court held that merely because the 9 IT(SS)A Nos.120-123/Kol/2018 & C.O. Nos. 123 to 126/Kol/2018 GRD Commodities Ltd., AYs- 2009-10 to 2012-13 transaction of convertible bonds was disclosed at the time of original assessment does

DCIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MARUTI FREIGHT MOVERS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh, I.T.A. No. 482/Kol/2014 Assessment Years: 2009-10

bogus transactions made by the appellant even though he had examined the books of accounts and the supporting vouchers of the appellant. Considering the above judicial pronouncements and the nature of business and the local situation, the appellant was forced to do business through certain Associations on the terms set by such Associations. This being the case, if the appellant

SEASIDE PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

purchase transactions amounted to Rs.6311 Cr. In a very casual manner, he has observed that these brokers and clients are spread all-over India whereby assessee is also one of the clients who is a beneficiary of such client code modification. Based on such observation, Ld. AO arrived at a conclusion that assessee is a beneficiary of an amount

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRIDGE & BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

purchase & other expenditure shown and the sales & income declared by the assessee. d] It is submitted that in A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 while completing the original assessment order, the ld AO had not made any disallowances of expenditure rather looking to nature of business activities and profit rate declared had been accepted and accordingly

BRIDGE & BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 10(1), , KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

purchase & other expenditure shown and the sales & income declared by the assessee. d] It is submitted that in A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 while completing the original assessment order, the ld AO had not made any disallowances of expenditure rather looking to nature of business activities and profit rate declared had been accepted and accordingly

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRIDGE & BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

purchase & other expenditure shown and the sales & income declared by the assessee. d] It is submitted that in A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 while completing the original assessment order, the ld AO had not made any disallowances of expenditure rather looking to nature of business activities and profit rate declared had been accepted and accordingly

BRIDGE & BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

purchase & other expenditure shown and the sales & income declared by the assessee. d] It is submitted that in A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 while completing the original assessment order, the ld AO had not made any disallowances of expenditure rather looking to nature of business activities and profit rate declared had been accepted and accordingly

BRIDGE & BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

purchase & other expenditure shown and the sales & income declared by the assessee. d] It is submitted that in A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 while completing the original assessment order, the ld AO had not made any disallowances of expenditure rather looking to nature of business activities and profit rate declared had been accepted and accordingly