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

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

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, 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

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

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

GANAPATI DEVELOPERS ,HOWRAH vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-47, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

bogus bills are stated to be ₹31,20,073/- and ₹78,350/-. The assessee objected stating that the figures are wrong and this fact is accepted by the ld. CIT(A) who states that the actual purchases was only ₹5,98,336/-; as the sales are also reflected in VAT return and sales tax return filed with the Central

A R UDYOG,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD 46(3), KOLKATA

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

sections": [ "68", "144", "147", "139", "148", "69C", "143(3)" ], "issues": "Whether additions made on account of bogus purchases were justified

BARDHAMAN DHARMARAJ PAPER MILL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.160/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Bardhaman Dharmaraj Paper Mill Pvt. Ltd.........................................……Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069. [Pan: Aaecb0141J] Vs. Pcit (Central), Asansol......….…..…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate & Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Md. Ghayasuddin, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 06, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 10, 2022 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 31.03.2021 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Pcit’) Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Brief Facts Are That The Assessment In This Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act To Verify The Transactions Of The Assessee With The Party M/S Siddhi Enterprises Due To Discrepancy Found In The Accounts. 3. The Assessing Officer Noted That The Assessee Had Failed To Prove The Genuineness Of The Purchases Made From M/S Siddhi Enterprises. However, He Further Noted That The Assessee Not Only Had Shown Such Purchases In The Books Of Account But Also Had Recorded Corresponding Sales Thereto. Therefore, The Assessing Officer Held That Since The

144/- into the income of the assessee. 4. In the revision proceedings carried out u/s 263 of the Act, the ld. PCIT relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of N K Proteins Ltd. vs. DCIT [2016] 72 taxmann.com 289 (Gujarat), the SLP against the said decision being dismissed

NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

144 of the Act. 3. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred both in law and on facts by passing the order on 07/01/2025 at 11:26 IST, prior to the expiry of the 3 stipulated time period provided in the notice for submissions, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and denying a reasonable opportunity

NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

144 of the Act. 3. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred both in law and on facts by passing the order on 07/01/2025 at 11:26 IST, prior to the expiry of the 3 stipulated time period provided in the notice for submissions, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and denying a reasonable opportunity

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

purchases during the year, deploying its funds. There ought to be certain element of profit embedded in the sale transaction executed which must be brought to tax. 15. Considering the above submission of the ld. DR and taking a holistic view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find it proper to consider net profit element

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

purchases during the year, deploying its funds. There ought to be certain element of profit embedded in the sale transaction executed which must be brought to tax. 15. Considering the above submission of the ld. DR and taking a holistic view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find it proper to consider net profit element

A.C.I.T.CIRCLE-42, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. M.M. EXPORTS, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2000-01

144 to 161 of the paper book. There was also an agreement between the assessee and the party for the sale purchase of glass beads and fire polished glass chatons which is placed at page 162 of the paper book. The assessee has made the payment of all the purchase bills through account payee cheque. Our attention was also drawn