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

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

section 68 of the Act is not applicable to a case where unsecured loan has been repaid. Therefore, our decision in ground no.1 in ITA No. 1699Kol/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 would mutatis mutandis apply to these ground nos. 6 to 8 of this appeal as well. The ground nos. 6 to 8 of the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

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

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

section 68 of the Act is not applicable to a case where unsecured loan has been repaid. Therefore, our decision in ground no.1 in ITA No. 1699Kol/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 would mutatis mutandis apply to these ground nos. 6 to 8 of this appeal as well. The ground nos. 6 to 8 of the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

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

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

section 68 of the Act is not applicable to a case where unsecured loan has been repaid. Therefore, our decision in ground no.1 in ITA No. 1699Kol/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 would mutatis mutandis apply to these ground nos. 6 to 8 of this appeal as well. The ground nos. 6 to 8 of the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

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

section 68 of the Act is not applicable\nto a case where unsecured loan has been repaid. Therefore, our\ndecision in ground no.1 in ITA No. 1699Kol/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 would\nmutatis mutandis apply to these ground nos.6 to 8 of this appeal as\nwell. The ground nos.6 to 8 of the appeal of the revenue are\ndismissed

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

section 68 of the Act is not applicable\nto a case where unsecured loan has been repaid. Therefore, our\ndecision in ground no.1 in ITA No. 1699Kol/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 would\nmutatis mutandis apply to these ground nos.6 to 8 of this appeal as\nwell. The ground nos.6 to 8 of the appeal of the revenue are\ndismissed

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 68 of the Act is not applicable\nto a case where unsecured loan has been repaid. Therefore, our\ndecision in ground no.1 in ITA No. 1699Kol/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 would\nmutatis mutandis apply to these ground nos.6 to 8 of this appeal as\nwell. The ground nos.6 to 8 of the appeal of the revenue are\ndismissed

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 68 of the Act is not applicable\nto a case where unsecured loan has been repaid. Therefore, our\ndecision in ground no.1 in ITA No. 1699Kol/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 would\nmutatis mutandis apply to these ground nos.6 to 8 of this appeal as\nwell. The ground nos.6 to 8 of the appeal of the revenue are\ndismissed

BALMUKUND SPONGE & IRON PVT. LTD.,,PATNA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3),, KOLKATA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 68 of the Act is not applicable\nto a case where unsecured loan has been repaid. Therefore, our\ndecision in ground no.1 in ITA No. 1699Kol/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 would\nmutatis mutandis apply to these ground nos.6 to 8 of this appeal as\nwell. The ground nos.6 to 8 of the appeal of the revenue are\ndismissed

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

section 68 of the Act is not applicable\nto a case where unsecured loan has been repaid. Therefore, our\ndecision in ground no.1 in ITA No. 1699Kol/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 would\nmutatis mutandis apply to these ground nos.6 to 8 of this appeal as\nwell. The ground nos.6 to 8 of the appeal of the revenue are\ndismissed

BALMUKUND CEMENT & ROOFINGS PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3),, KOLKATA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 68 of the Act is not applicable\nto a case where unsecured loan has been repaid. Therefore, our\ndecision in ground no.1 in ITA No. 1699Kol/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 would\nmutatis mutandis apply to these ground nos.6 to 8 of this appeal as\nwell. The ground nos.6 to 8 of the appeal of the revenue are\ndismissed

BALMUKUND SPONGE & IRON PVT. LTD.,,PATNA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3),, KOLKATA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 68 of the Act is not applicable\nto a case where unsecured loan has been repaid. Therefore, our\ndecision in ground no.1 in ITA No. 1699Kol/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 would\nmutatis mutandis apply to these ground nos.6 to 8 of this appeal as\nwell. The ground nos.6 to 8 of the appeal of the revenue are\ndismissed

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 68 of the Act is not applicable\nto a case where unsecured loan has been repaid. Therefore, our\ndecision in ground no.1 in ITA No. 1699Kol/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 would\nmutatis mutandis apply to these ground nos.6 to 8 of this appeal as\nwell. The ground nos.6 to 8 of the appeal of the revenue are\ndismissed

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 68 of the Act is not applicable\nto a case where unsecured loan has been repaid. Therefore, our\ndecision in ground no.1 in ITA No. 1699Kol/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 would\nmutatis mutandis apply to these ground nos.6 to 8 of this appeal as\nwell. The ground nos.6 to 8 of the appeal of the revenue are\ndismissed

BALMUKUND SPONGE & IRON PVT. LTD.,,PATNA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3),, KOLKATA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 68 of the Act is not applicable\nto a case where unsecured loan has been repaid. Therefore, our\ndecision in ground no.1 in ITA No. 1699Kol/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 would\nmutatis mutandis apply to these ground nos.6 to 8 of this appeal as\nwell. The ground nos.6 to 8 of the appeal of the revenue are\ndismissed

BALMUKUND SPONGE & IRON PVT. LTD.,,PATNA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3),, KOLKATA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 68 of the Act is not applicable\nto a case where unsecured loan has been repaid. Therefore, our\ndecision in ground no.1 in ITA No. 1699Kol/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 would\nmutatis mutandis apply to these ground nos.6 to 8 of this appeal as\nwell. The ground nos.6 to 8 of the appeal of the revenue are\ndismissed

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

120/-, totalling Rs.18,85,520/- during the financial year 2011-12 relevant to assessment year under consideration. The assessment of the assessee on the basis of the aforesaid information was reopened u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act. During the reassessment proceedings, the assessee submitted various documents such as bills, VAT returns, purchase inputs etc. The assessee also claimed that

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

bogus purchases made from Smt. Anima Roy. 5. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the disallowance of Rs.44,459/- made by the A.O. on account of Employees' contribution to Provident Fund by wrongly invoking the provisions of sec.36(1)(va) r.w.s

ZAFAR IQBAL,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

120 TTJ (Bang) 567 it was held that where the\nappellant has employed the LTCG in purchasing of a dilapidated house,\nrelief u/s 54F cannot be denied.\nThe decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dr. R. Balagi\n(2014) 111 DTR (Kar) 288 was also brought to the notice of the Ld. CIT, in\nwhich