DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUMANGAL DEALMARK PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

bogus. 5.3(c) In the assessment order, AO has alleged that Nilachal Ispat Pvt. Ltd. was generating cash by selling some of its low quality products in cash. AO has further alleged that proof of cash generation for the period 01-01-2016 to 30-09-2016 was found in the seized documents. However, appellant has CO No.18/Kol/2024 clarified that

DCIT,CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SAMRIDDHI METALS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

bogus. 5.3(c) In the assessment order, AO has alleged that Nilachal Ispat Pvt. Ltd. was generating cash by selling some of its low quality products in cash. AO has further alleged that proof of cash generation for the period 01-01-2016 to 30-09-2016 was found in the seized documents. However, appellant has CO No.18/Kol/2024 clarified that

DCIT,CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUMANGAL DEALMARK PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

bogus. 5.3(c) In the assessment order, AO has alleged that Nilachal Ispat Pvt. Ltd. was generating cash by selling some of its low quality products in cash. AO has further alleged that proof of cash generation for the period 01-01-2016 to 30-09-2016 was found in the seized documents. However, appellant has CO No.18/Kol/2024 clarified that

DCIT,CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. DISHA REALCON PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

bogus. 5.3(c) In the assessment order, AO has alleged that Nilachal Ispat Pvt. Ltd. was generating cash by selling some of its low quality products in cash. AO has further alleged that proof of cash generation for the period 01-01-2016 to 30-09-2016 was found in the seized documents. However, appellant has CO No.18/Kol/2024 clarified that

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUMANGAL DEALMARK PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

bogus. 5.3(c) In the assessment order, AO has alleged that Nilachal Ispat Pvt. Ltd. was generating cash by selling some of its low quality products in cash. AO has further alleged that proof of cash generation for the period 01-01-2016 to 30-09-2016 was found in the seized documents. However, appellant has CO No.18/Kol/2024 clarified that

DCIT,CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SAMRIDDHI METALS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

bogus. 5.3(c) In the assessment order, AO has alleged that Nilachal Ispat Pvt. Ltd. was generating cash by selling some of its low quality products in cash. AO has further alleged that proof of cash generation for the period 01-01-2016 to 30-09-2016 was found in the seized documents. However, appellant has CO No.18/Kol/2024 clarified that

DCIT,CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SAMRIDDHI METALS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

bogus. 5.3(c) In the assessment order, AO has alleged that Nilachal Ispat Pvt. Ltd. was generating cash by selling some of its low quality products in cash. AO has further alleged that proof of cash generation for the period 01-01-2016 to 30-09-2016 was found in the seized documents. However, appellant has CO No.18/Kol/2024 clarified that

DCIT,CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUMANGAL DEALMARK PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

bogus. 5.3(c) In the assessment order, AO has alleged that Nilachal Ispat Pvt. Ltd. was generating cash by selling some of its low quality products in cash. AO has further alleged that proof of cash generation for the period 01-01-2016 to 30-09-2016 was found in the seized documents. However, appellant has CO No.18/Kol/2024 clarified that

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. DISHA REALCON PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

bogus. 5.3(c) In the assessment order, AO has alleged that Nilachal Ispat Pvt. Ltd. was generating cash by selling some of its low quality products in cash. AO has further alleged that proof of cash generation for the period 01-01-2016 to 30-09-2016 was found in the seized documents. However, appellant has CO No.18/Kol/2024 clarified that

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SAMRIDDHI METALS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

bogus. 5.3(c) In the assessment order, AO has alleged that Nilachal Ispat Pvt. Ltd. was generating cash by selling some of its low quality products in cash. AO has further alleged that proof of cash generation for the period 01-01-2016 to 30-09-2016 was found in the seized documents. However, appellant has CO No.18/Kol/2024 clarified that

DCIT,CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUMANGAL DEALMARK PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

bogus. 5.3(c) In the assessment order, AO has alleged that Nilachal Ispat Pvt. Ltd. was generating cash by selling some of its low quality products in cash. AO has further alleged that proof of cash generation for the period 01-01-2016 to 30-09-2016 was found in the seized documents. However, appellant has CO No.18/Kol/2024 clarified that

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

bogus and such action is bad in law and in view of the facts and in the circumstances the addition so made is liable to be deleted and it may be held accordingly. 16. Without prejudice to Grounds No. 14 & 15 above, the payment made to the said vendor (i.e. Reeja Trading Private Ltd.) were through banking channel

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

bogus and such action is bad in law and in view of the facts and in the circumstances the addition so made is liable to be deleted and it may be held accordingly. 16. Without prejudice to Grounds No. 14 & 15 above, the payment made to the said vendor (i.e. Reeja Trading Private Ltd.) were through banking channel

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

bogus and such action is bad in law and in view of the facts and in the circumstances the addition so made is liable to be deleted and it may be held accordingly 16. Without prejudice to Grounds No. 14 & 15 above, the payment made to the said vendor (i.e. Reeja Trading Private Ltd.) were through banking channel

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

bogus and such action is bad in law and in view of the facts and in the circumstances the addition so made is liable to be deleted and it may be held accordingly. 16. Without prejudice to Grounds No. 14 & 15 above, the payment made to the said vendor (i.e. Reeja Trading Private Ltd.) were through banking channel

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

bogus and such action is bad in law and in view of the facts and in the circumstances the addition so made is liable to be deleted and it may be held accordingly. 16. Without prejudice to Grounds No. 14 & 15 above, the payment made to the said vendor (i.e. Reeja Trading Private Ltd.) were through banking channel

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

bogus and such action is bad in law and in view of the facts and in the circumstances the addition so made is liable to be deleted and it may be held accordingly. 16. Without prejudice to Grounds No. 14 & 15 above, the payment made to the said vendor (i.e. Reeja Trading Private Ltd.) were through banking channel

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

bogus and such action is bad in law and in view of the facts and in the circumstances the addition so made is liable to be deleted and it may be held accordingly. 16. Without prejudice to Grounds No. 14 & 15 above, the payment made to the said vendor (i.e. Reeja Trading Private Ltd.) were through banking channel