DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

bogus purchases has no\nlegs to stand. Moreover we find that the coal manufacturing requirement\nof the plant are within the acceptable norms and parameters as has been\nprescribed by the government in the manufacturing process of steel. Even if we\nassume that there has been purchase of coal from the Majee Group, then\nthe same might have used

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

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 68 of the Act\nBefore the Commissioner (Appeals) it as submitted by the assessee that raw hides were purchased from the four parties under consideration on the understanding that after the hides were processed and the finished leather was produced the same would be resold to same parties in substance therefore the transaction was more in the nature

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

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

1), Kolkata v. M/s Chein Hsing Tannery in ITA No. 1629/Kol/2017 order ITA Nos. 1688 to 1691/KOL/2025&1725/KOL/2025 Balajee Mini Steels & Rerolling Private Limited; AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 dated 15.05.2019 wherein estimation of profit on bogus purchase has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) and the ITAT [Para-3]. 7.2.2. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), , KOLKATA

bogus purchases has no\nlegs to stand. Moreover we find that the coal manufacturing requirement\nof the plant are within the acceptable norms and parameters as has been\nprescribed by the government in the manufacturing process of steel. Even if we\nassume that there has been purchase of coal from the Majee Group, then\nthe same might have used

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1),, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

bogus purchases has no\nlegs to stand. Moreover we find that the coal manufacturing requirement\nof the plant are within the acceptable norms and parameters as has been\nprescribed by the government in the manufacturing process of steel. Even if we\nassume that there has been purchase of coal from the Majee Group, then\nthe same might have used

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), KOLKATA

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and\nappeals of the revenue are dismissed

bogus purchases has no\nlegs to stand. Moreover we find that the coal manufacturing requirement\nof the plant are within the acceptable norms and parameters as has been\nprescribed by the government in the manufacturing process of steel. Even if we\nassume that there has been purchase of coal from the Majee Group, then\nthe same might have used

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

bogus purchases has no\nlegs to stand. Moreover we find that the coal manufacturing requirement\nof the plant are within the acceptable norms and parameters as has been\nprescribed by the government in the manufacturing process of steel. Even if we\nassume that there has been purchase of coal from the Majee Group, then\nthe same might have used

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

bogus purchases, it was noted that if sales were genuine, purchases could not be entirely disallowed, and profit element was considered. Several additions were deleted based on lack of evidence or contrary judicial pronouncements.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "69A", "68", "147", "148", "143(3)", "132", "292C", "69C", "133(6)", "131", "36(1

D.C.I.T., CC - 3(1),, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

bogus purchases has no\nlegs to stand. Moreover we find that the coal manufacturing requirement\nof the plant are within the acceptable norms and parameters as has been\nprescribed by the government in the manufacturing process of steel. Even if we\nassume that there has been purchase of coal from the Majee Group, then\nthe same might have used

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

sections": [ "69A", "147", "148", "143(3)", "132", "292C", "68", "133(6)", "131", "69C", "36(1)" ], "issues": "Whether cash transactions, presented as investments, can be treated as income? Whether additions for bogus purchases

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

bogus purchases has no\nlegs to stand. Moreover we find that the coal manufacturing requirement\nof the plant are within the acceptable norms and parameters as has been\nprescribed by the government in the manufacturing process of steel. Even if we\nassume that there has been purchase of coal from the Majee Group, then\nthe same might have used

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), , KOLKATA

bogus purchases has no\nlegs to stand. Moreover we find that the coal manufacturing requirement\nof the plant are within the acceptable norms and parameters as has been\nprescribed by the government in the manufacturing process of steel. Even if we\nassume that there has been purchase of coal from the Majee Group, then\nthe same might have used

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), , KOLKATA

bogus purchases has no\nlegs to stand. Moreover we find that the coal manufacturing requirement\nof the plant are within the acceptable norms and parameters as has been\nprescribed by the government in the manufacturing process of steel. Even if we\nassume that there has been purchase of coal from the Majee Group, then\nthe same might have used

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3.1, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

bogus purchases has no\nlegs to stand. Moreover we find that the coal manufacturing requirement\nof the plant are within the acceptable norms and parameters as has been\nprescribed by the government in the manufacturing process of steel. Even if we\nassume that there has been purchase of coal from the Majee Group, then\nthe same might have used

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

132 of the Act was Balmukund Lease Fin Private Limited; A.Y. 15-16 to 18-19, 23-24 Balmukund Cement & Roofings Private Limited AYs 15-16 to 21-22, 23-24 Balmukund Sponge and Iron Private Limited; A.Y. 23-24 conducted on 30.11.2025, and on the subsequent dates on the premises of ‘Kanodia Group of cases’. The assessee being

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

132 of the Act was Balmukund Lease Fin Private Limited; A.Y. 15-16 to 18-19, 23-24 Balmukund Cement & Roofings Private Limited AYs 15-16 to 21-22, 23-24 Balmukund Sponge and Iron Private Limited; A.Y. 23-24 conducted on 30.11.2025, and on the subsequent dates on the premises of ‘Kanodia Group of cases’. The assessee being

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

132 of the Act was Balmukund Lease Fin Private Limited; A.Y. 15-16 to 18-19, 23-24 Balmukund Cement & Roofings Private Limited AYs 15-16 to 21-22, 23-24 Balmukund Sponge and Iron Private Limited; A.Y. 23-24 conducted on 30.11.2025, and on the subsequent dates on the premises of ‘Kanodia Group of cases’. The assessee being

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

132 of the Act was Balmukund Lease Fin Private Limited; A.Y. 15-16 to 18-19, 23-24 Balmukund Cement & Roofings Private Limited AYs 15-16 to 21-22, 23-24 Balmukund Sponge and Iron Private Limited; A.Y. 23-24 conducted on 30.11.2025, and on the subsequent dates on the premises of ‘Kanodia Group of cases’. The assessee being