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

section 133A was conducted upon the appellant and on\nphysical verification the Department had reported that excess stock\nwas found physically in comparison to the stock appearing in the\nBooks of Accounts/Stock Record. At the time of assessment, the\nAO assessed the entire value of excess stock found at the time of\nsurvey by way of undisclosed income

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

section 133A was conducted upon the appellant and on\nphysical verification the Department had reported that excess stock\nwas found physically in comparison to the stock appearing in the\nBooks of Accounts/Stock Record. At the time of assessment, the\nAO assessed the entire value of excess stock found at the time of\nsurvey by way of undisclosed income

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

section 133A was conducted upon the appellant and on\nphysical verification the Department had reported that excess stock\nwas found physically in comparison to the stock appearing in the\nBooks of Accounts/Stock Record. At the time of assessment, the\nAO assessed the entire value of excess stock found at the time of\nsurvey by way of undisclosed income

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

section 133A was conducted upon the appellant and on\nphysical verification the Department had reported that excess stock\nwas found physically in comparison to the stock appearing in the\nBooks of Accounts/Stock Record. At the time of assessment, the\nAO assessed the entire value of excess stock found at the time of\nsurvey by way of undisclosed income

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

section 133A was conducted upon the appellant and on\nphysical verification the Department had reported that excess stock\nwas found physically in comparison to the stock appearing in the\nBooks of Accounts/Stock Record. At the time of assessment, the\nAO assessed the entire value of excess stock found at the time of\nsurvey by way of undisclosed income

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

section 133A was conducted upon the appellant and on\nphysical verification the Department had reported that excess stock\nwas found physically in comparison to the stock appearing in the\nBooks of Accounts/Stock Record. At the time of assessment, the\nAO assessed the entire value of excess stock found at the time of\nsurvey by way of undisclosed income

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

section 133A was conducted upon the appellant and on\nphysical verification the Department had reported that excess stock\nwas found physically in comparison to the stock appearing in the\nBooks of Accounts/Stock Record. At the time of assessment, the\nAO assessed the entire value of excess stock found at the time of\nsurvey by way of undisclosed income

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

section 133A was conducted upon the appellant and on\nphysical verification the Department had reported that excess stock\nwas found physically in comparison to the stock appearing in the\nBooks of Accounts/Stock Record. At the time of assessment, the\nAO assessed the entire value of excess stock found at the time of\nsurvey by way of undisclosed income

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

section 133A was conducted upon the appellant and on\nphysical verification the Department had reported that excess stock\nwas found physically in comparison to the stock appearing in the\nBooks of Accounts/Stock Record. At the time of assessment, the\nAO assessed the entire value of excess stock found at the time of\nsurvey by way of undisclosed income

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

section 133A was conducted upon the appellant and on\nphysical verification the Department had reported that excess stock\nwas found physically in comparison to the stock appearing in the\nBooks of Accounts/Stock Record. At the time of assessment, the\nAO assessed the entire value of excess stock found at the time of\nsurvey by way of undisclosed income

ALLOY STEEL EMPORIUM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-4(3), KOL., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am] I.T.A. No. 286/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Alloy Steel Emporium Pvt. Ltd..................................………………………………….Appellant 10, Clive Row, 6Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Aacca 5738 N] Ito, Ward 4(3) Kolkata...................…………………………………………….....................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata – 700 069. Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri D.C. Mondal, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 29, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 20, 2018 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 17, Kolkata Dated 10.06.2016 & Grounds Raised Therein Read As Under: “1. That The Assessment Order Dated 04.03.2014 Framed U/S 147/143(3) Is Void & Nullity In The Eyes Of Law As There Are No Recorded Reasons To Belief That The Income Chargeable To Tax Escaped Assessment. 2. That Without Prejudice To Ground No 1 Stated Above, The Recorded Reasons Are Invalid & Improper & As Such, The Assessment Framed Vide Order Dated 04.03.2014 Is Bad In Law In The Eye Of Law. 3. That The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 30,66,273/- Made By The A.O. On Account Of Bogus Purchase.”

bogus purchases, the relevant facts are as follows: The assessee in the present case is a company which is engaged in the business of trading of steel materials. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 21.11.2006 declaring a total income of Rs. 4,64,283/-. The said return was initially processed

MANGILAL JAIN ,DARJEELING vs. ITO, WARD - 3(3), DARJEELING , DARJEELING

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2014-15 Mangilal Jain Income Tax Officer, बनाम / C/O Advocate Pradip Ward-3(3), Nr. Lal V/S. Lakhotia, 2Nd Floor, Metro Kothi, Darjeeling Plaza, Sf Road, Siliguri-734005 [Pan No.Afkpj 4178 D] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Dhiraj Lakhotia, A.R अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri C.J. Singh, Jcit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 05-03-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 15-05-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Siliguri’S Order Dated 22.03.2018 Passed In Case No.69/Cit(A)/Slg/2016-17, Involving Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Grievance Raised In The Instant Appeal Seeks To Reverse Both The Lower Authorities Findings Treating His Short Term Capital Loss (Stcl) Arising From Sale Of Shares After Payment Of Security Transaction Tax (Stt), Amounting To ₹1,92,320/- As Bogus Unexplained Cash Credits. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reads As Under:- “4. Decision :- I Have Perused The Assessment Order, The Grounds Of Appeal & The Submissions Made By The Ld.. A/R On Behalf Of The Appellant. My Observations & Findings Are As Under :- 4.1. The Present Appeal Emanates After Disallowing Rs. 11,92,320/- Arising Out Of Shares Transaction & Treated The Same As Bogus. In This Case The Assessee Purchased 32000 Shares Of Global Infratech & Finance Ltd. Through Eureka Stock & Shares Broking Services Limited @ Rs. 77.37 Per Share Aggregating To Rs. 24,79,714/- On 11.02.2014 & Further Sold The

133A and recording of statement u/s 131. It has been pointed out by the A.O. that it has been admitted by a number of persons involved in running such entities of their role in arranging these share transaction. It has been revealed that the shares of Global Infratech & Finance Ltd. have been used by different share brokers for providing bogus

ACIT, CIR-40, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S LUMENS INDIA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: : Shri P.M Jagtap & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

bogus. The statement of the said Shree Shyam Bagaria is so general in nature that does not support the view that, the appellant had not made any purchases from the three concerns.] There is no material on record to show that cross- examination of statement was allowed. In this case, all the transactions are duly recorded in the books

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the\nCOs of the assessee are partly allowed

133A", "143(3)", "139(1)", "68", "133(6)", "271D", "271E", "69C" ], "issues": "The main issues involved are the validity of reopening of assessment under Section 147, and the deletion of additions made by the AO towards bogus unsecured loans, bogus purchases

M/S. K.R. TRADELINK PRIVATE LIMITED. ,HOWRAH vs. NE-AC, DELHI. , DELHI.

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

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

133A of the Act made the addition by disallowing entire purchases by treating the same as bogus purchases after invoking the provisions of section

M/S. ALLOY STEEL EMPORIUM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

bogus purchase. Other grounds were not pressed by the assessee. 4. The brief facts qua the issue are that a survey proceeding u/s 133A was conducted by the Income Tax Officer, in the business premises of the company named M/s.Vikash Iron & Steels Pvt. Ltd. During the survey proceeding it was found that M/s. Vikash Iron & Steels Pvt. Ltd, raised fake

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

133A of the Act, but a retracted statement even under section 132(4) of the Act would require some corroborative material for the AO to proceed to make additions on the basis of such statement. 12.2 In the case of “Basant Bansal vs. ACIT” reported in (2015)63 taxmann.com 199 (Jaipur Trib.), the assessee therein, during the search and seizure

DEPUTY COMMISSOENR OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

133A of the Act, but a retracted statement even under section 132(4) of the Act would require some corroborative material for the AO to proceed to make additions on the basis of such statement. 12.2 In the case of “Basant Bansal vs. ACIT” reported in (2015)63 taxmann.com 199 (Jaipur Trib.), the assessee therein, during the search and seizure