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

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

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

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

116 ITD 1 (Kol- Trib.)(SB) it was held that the payment for purchase of hides and skins would be covered by sub-clause (ii) of clause (f) of rule 6DD [now rules 6DD(e)] being the producer of animal husbandry. However, as per clause (f), not only the payment should be made for purchase of produce of animal husbandry

I.T.O WD - 2(3),ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. M/S PREMIER TRADERS SELF HELP GROUP (H/O KISHORE MONDAL), BURDWAN

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

bogus. Recourse to section 40A(3) is not an available option in such a situation.” Being aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) Revenue is in appeal before us. 11. Before us both the parties relied on the orders of Authorities Below as favourable to them. 12. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available

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

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

STEEL & WIRE SUPPLY CONCERN,HOWRAH vs. THE ITO, WD-43(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy

section 30E of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003 have not found any discrepancy in the purchases from M/s. Apex Traders. The Assessing Officer in this case has not made any enquiries from the Sales Tax Department. Keeping in view the VAT returns filed by the assessee, the audit report given by the auditor, copies of the certificate

SHARMA EGG SUPPLIER ,SILIGURI vs. ITO, WARD - 2(3), SILIGURI , SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 1846/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2015-16

bogus at the when AO accepts the sale of eggs shown by the assessee. Sale of eggs cannot happen without eggs are there in assessee’s possession and so the entire addition of purchase of eggs of certain parties as done in this case cannot be countenanced. The AO cannot disallow the purchase without reducing either the sales

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KAMARHATTY COMPANY LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of Revenue (in Ground No

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Dr.A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2011-12

bogus purchases of raw materials, to the tune of Rs.25,12,469/- on account unexplained shortage in production. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter and / or modify, substitute all or any of the grounds of appeal, during the course of hearing.” 3.Ground No.1 raised by the Revenue relates to addition of ₹7,49,749/- on account

RAINBOW VANIJYA PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 144B of the Act vide order dated 29.09.2022 by making an addition of ₹1,33,61,982/- by making an addition at the rate of 1% of the aggregate of purchases, sales and loans and advances.\n03. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Id. CIT (A), however, the Id. CIT (A) enhanced the assessment by an amount

M/S. GUNNY DEALERS LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TECH-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1373/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2012-13 M/S Gunny Dealers Ltd…………………....................…...……………....Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Aabcg0019R] Vs. Ito, Tech-1, Kolkata………….……………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 27, 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 28.11.2023 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 Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Haye Considered That The Order U/S 143(3) Was Passed By An Authority Who Lacks Jurisdiction Over The Appellant & As Such, The Said Order Is Bad In Law & Is Liable To Be Quashed. 2. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Disallowance Of

116 of the paper-book to submit that the date-wise details of the purchases were duly recorded by the assessee along with date, name of the farmer, name of the village, the quantity of purchase and amount paid/payable, which were duly furnished before the lower authorities. The ld. Counsel has further referred to page 118 of the paper-book

SHRI RAKESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY,DURGAPUR vs. ACIT, CIR-DURGAPUR, 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

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

SATISH KUMAR LAKHMANI,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"ी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. टी. वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

purchases goes against principle of Sec 68 and 69C of the Act, was upheld by the Apex Court. 5.10 It is imperative on the part of the Assessing Officer to examine each and every transaction and finally to assess correct income of the assessee. In this case, the assessment order was passed I.T.A No. 260/Kol/2019 Satish Kumar Lakhmani

GOPICHAND LAKHMANI ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

purchases goes against principle of Sec 68 and 69C of the Act, was upheld by the Apex Court. 5.10 It is imperative on the part of the Assessing Officer to examine each and every transaction and finally to assess correct income of the assessee. In this case, the 17 I.T.A. Nos. 41 to 47/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ritin Lakhmani

RACHIT LAKHMANI ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

purchases goes against principle of Sec 68 and 69C of the Act, was upheld by the Apex Court. 5.10 It is imperative on the part of the Assessing Officer to examine each and every transaction and finally to assess correct income of the assessee. In this case, the 17 I.T.A. Nos. 41 to 47/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ritin Lakhmani

JAIKISHAN LAKHMANI ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10 , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

purchases goes against principle of Sec 68 and 69C of the Act, was upheld by the Apex Court. 5.10 It is imperative on the part of the Assessing Officer to examine each and every transaction and finally to assess correct income of the assessee. In this case, the 17 I.T.A. Nos. 41 to 47/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ritin Lakhmani

RITIN LAKHMANI,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10 , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

purchases goes against principle of Sec 68 and 69C of the Act, was upheld by the Apex Court. 5.10 It is imperative on the part of the Assessing Officer to examine each and every transaction and finally to assess correct income of the assessee. In this case, the 17 I.T.A. Nos. 41 to 47/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ritin Lakhmani