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

purchase order received by the assessee regarding the alleged sale. Therefore, in the absence of adequate evidence it cannot be concluded that this sale was actually made during the year and it was not an accommodation entry. 3.3 As per section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained

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

purchase order received by the assessee regarding the alleged sale. Therefore, in the absence of adequate evidence it cannot be concluded that this sale was actually made during the year and it was not an accommodation entry. 3.3 As per section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained

M/S. SAROJ EMBRODS PVT. LTD. ,HOOGHLY vs. DCIT, C.C-3(4), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoysarma]

bogus purchases required to be examined and in pare 2 page 2 the AO has noted that the income has, to that extent, escaped assessment in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. A.R argued that the reopening of assessment u/s 147 read with Section 148

SAROJ EMBRODS PRIVATE LIMITED. ,HOOGHLY vs. DCIT,C.C-3(4), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoysarma]

bogus purchases required to be examined and in pare 2 page 2 the AO has noted that the income has, to that extent, escaped assessment in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. A.R argued that the reopening of assessment u/s 147 read with Section 148

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

148 of the Act was issued on 21.02.2024, and duly served upon the assessee. In reply, the assessee filed the return of income on 07.03.2024, declaring the same income as was declared in the original return of income. Thereafter, the statutory notices along with questionnaire were issued which were complied with and replied by the assessee by furnishing

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

148 of the Act was issued on 21.02.2024, and duly served upon the assessee. In reply, the assessee filed the return of income on 07.03.2024, declaring the same income as was declared in the original return of income. Thereafter, the statutory notices along with questionnaire were issued which were complied with and replied by the assessee by furnishing

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

148 of the Act was issued on 21.02.2024, and duly served upon the assessee. In reply, the assessee filed the return of income on 07.03.2024, declaring the same income as was declared in the original return of income. Thereafter, the statutory notices along with questionnaire were issued which were complied with and replied by the assessee by furnishing

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

148 of the Act was issued on 21.02.2024, and duly served upon the assessee. In reply, the assessee filed the return of income on 07.03.2024, declaring the same income as was declared in the original return of income. Thereafter, the statutory notices along with questionnaire were issued which were complied with and replied by the assessee by furnishing

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

148 of the Act was issued on 21.02.2024, and duly served upon the assessee. In reply, the assessee filed the return of income on 07.03.2024, declaring the same income as was declared in the original return of income. Thereafter, the statutory notices along with questionnaire were issued which were complied with and replied by the assessee by furnishing

URVASHI SAREES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: ITAT, Kolkata were collected and prepared | | 18.01.2025 | 2nd Appeal was filed |

bogus purchases. 2.4 Aggrieved with the assessment order the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) where he could get partial relief. Further aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) both the assessee and Revenue have filed the appeals before this Tribunal. 3. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined

PRAMOD LAKRA DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. URVASHI SAREES PVT. LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: ITAT, Kolkata were collected and prepared | | 18.01.2025 | 2nd Appeal was filed |

bogus purchases. 2.4 Aggrieved with the assessment order the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) where he could get partial relief. Further aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) both the assessee and Revenue have filed the appeals before this Tribunal. 3. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined

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

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

148 and the consequent proceedings u/s\n147 is bad in law and it may be held accordingly.\n6. For that in view of the facts and in the circumstances, Ld.\nCIT(A) erred in not deleting the entire addition of alleged\nundisclosed purchase of Rs. 29,93,22,967/- and also erred in\napplying gross profit rate @ 8.01% and such

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

148 and the consequent proceedings u/s\n147 is bad in law and it may be held accordingly.\n6. For that in view of the facts and in the circumstances, Ld.\nCIT(A) erred in not deleting the entire addition of alleged\nundisclosed purchase of Rs. 29,93,22,967/- and also erred in\napplying gross profit rate @ 8.01% and such

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

148 and the consequent proceedings u/s\n147 is bad in law and it may be held accordingly.\n6. For that in view of the facts and in the circumstances, Ld.\nCIT(A) erred in not deleting the entire addition of alleged\nundisclosed purchase of Rs. 29,93,22,967/- and also erred in\napplying gross profit rate @ 8.01% and such

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, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND SPONGE AND IRON PRIVATE LIMITED , PATNA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

bogus purchases, the Tribunal found that if sales were genuine, corresponding purchases could not be entirely denied, and profit element should be considered. Similarly, where both purchases and sales were deemed fictitious and profit was already offered, no further disallowance was warranted.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "69A", "147", "148

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

sections": [ "147", "148", "69A", "132", "133(6)", "131", "292C", "68", "69C", "115JB", "139(1)" ], "issues": "Whether additions made by the AO on account of unexplained cash transactions, suppressed sales, bogus purchases

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

148 and the consequent proceedings u/s\n147 is bad in law and it may be held accordingly.\n6. For that in view of the facts and in the circumstances, Ld.\nCIT(A) erred in not deleting the entire addition of alleged\nundisclosed purchase of Rs. 29,93,22,967/- and also erred in\napplying gross profit rate @ 8.01% and such