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

1. Purchase invoices, purchase order, E-way bill, along with photographic evidence of the goods acquired. ITA Nos.: 179 & 180/KOL/2025 AYs: 2011-12 & 2015-16 Nezone Tubes Limited. 2. Confirmation from the seller of goods stating that the goods are sold by him. 3. An inward register and outward register maintained at register premises, containing details such as dates, supplier

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

1. Purchase invoices, purchase order, E-way bill, along with photographic evidence of the goods acquired. ITA Nos.: 179 & 180/KOL/2025 AYs: 2011-12 & 2015-16 Nezone Tubes Limited. 2. Confirmation from the seller of goods stating that the goods are sold by him. 3. An inward register and outward register maintained at register premises, containing details such as dates, supplier

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

M/S. BLACKSTONE OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-5(1),, KOLKATA

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

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

bogus purchases. The assessee was given notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act. The assessee has not filed any reply. Thereafter, the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act was passed on 07.04.2022 and notice was finally issued u/s 148 of the Act on 07.04.2022 to the assessee after obtaining the approval from the competent authority i.e. PCIT, Kolkata

BLACKSTONE OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 5(1),, KOLKATA

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

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

bogus purchases. The assessee was given notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act. The assessee has not filed any reply. Thereafter, the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act was passed on 07.04.2022 and notice was finally issued u/s 148 of the Act on 07.04.2022 to the assessee after obtaining the approval from the competent authority i.e. PCIT, Kolkata

M/S. DIACH CHEMICALS & PIGMENTS PVT. LTD.,HOWRAH vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 148A of the Act dated 17.03.2022, wherein at page no. 4 of the notice the ld. AO has stated that M/s Saviri Ispat India Pvt. Ltd. has taken accommodation entry and brought back their unaccounted income into their regular books of accounts in the guise of bogus share/ share premium, unsecured loans etc. amounting

M/S. DIACH CHEMICALS & PIGMENTS PVT. LTD.,HOWRAH vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 148A of the Act dated 17.03.2022, wherein at page no. 4 of the notice the ld. AO has stated that M/s Saviri Ispat India Pvt. Ltd. has taken accommodation entry and brought back their unaccounted income into their regular books of accounts in the guise of bogus share/ share premium, unsecured loans etc. amounting

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAJSHRI IRON INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrisonjoy Sarma, Jm

Sections 68 and 69 C of the Act, and if the purchases are bogus, then it is not incumbent upon the Tribunal to restrict the disallowance only to confirm certain percentage of such purchases. The Special Leave Petition against the said decision was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of N. K. Protiens Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAJSHRI IRON INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrisonjoy Sarma, Jm

Sections 68 and 69 C of the Act, and if the purchases are bogus, then it is not incumbent upon the Tribunal to restrict the disallowance only to confirm certain percentage of such purchases. The Special Leave Petition against the said decision was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of N. K. Protiens Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner

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

d) of explanation 2 to Section 263(1), the order was treated as erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Accordingly, the order on the stated issue was set aside for re- adjudication. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 5. We find that the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the cited

SRI NIKHIL MAHESWARI,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 50(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Sri Nikhil Maheswari Bf-250, 2Nd Floor, Sector-1, Ito Ward 50(1) Central Circle-Block, Uttrapan Complex, Manicktalla Baisakhi Island Sali, Salt Lake, Civil Centre, Ultadanga, Kolkata- Vs. Bidhannagar, Kolkata-700064, 700054, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Bbzpm1050R Assessee By : Shri Abhishek Bansal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Pampa Ray, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.02.2026

bogus purchases to the tune of ₹1,00,00,338/-. The case of the assessee was reopened for scrutiny by passing order u/s 148A(d) of the Act on 28.07.2022 after issuing show cause notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act. Notice was finally issued u/s 148 of the Act on 30.07.2022 to the assessee after obtaining the approval from

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. FLEX TRADE PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

purchase & sale bill to various entities. Based upon the statement, the AO issued notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act on 15.03.2022 to the assessee company inferring that the assessee company, M/s. Flex Trades Pvt. Ltd. was a beneficiary of bogus loan entries provided by AFL to the tune of Rs. 22,58,75,343/-. After that

KAMLAWATI CHOWHAN,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD 46(1),, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the CIT(A). However, due to non-compliance on consecutive dates, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte. The assessee has now preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal, contending that the authorities below passed the orders without affording a reasonable opportunity to substantiate its claim with supporting evidence. The assessee, therefore, prayed that one more opportunity may be granted to substantiate its case before the Assessing Officer.

bogus purchases amounting to ₹ 20,06,616/-, the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under Section 148A(b) of the Act .As there was no compliance by the assessee to the show cause notice issued under Section 148A(b), an order under Section 148A(d) was passed and notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued thereafter. In response, the assessee

JCIT (IN-SITU), CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. TEZAS TRADING COMPANY PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, both, the appeal of revenue as well as the cross objection of the assessee, are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

bogus and thereby made the addition of entire purchases and sales shown by the assessee in commodity transactions. Further, the Assessing Officer added a sum of Rs.2,560/- u/s. 14A of the Act and further disallowed a sum of Rs.9,72,508/- claimed by the assessee as warehousing charges and thereby assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.23

NEENA BIHANI,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD -49(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

148A(d) of the Act, and in the show cause notice also the\nallegation of escaped income pertained to the purchase of shares, which led to the\nissuance of a notice under section 148. However, the assessment order erroneously\nassessed the case based on long-term capital gains, which contradicts the principles of\nequity and fairness in completed assessments

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

148A which AO failed to do in this case and hence consequential proceedings and order so passed u/s 147 has become bad in law. vii) Before issuing notice u/s 148 (for A.Y 2019-20) the conditions as specified in sec. 149(1)(b) were required to be satisfied and which is not satisfied in appellant's case. Such condition

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

148A which AO failed to do in this case and hence consequential proceedings and order so passed u/s 147 has become bad in law vii) Before issuing notice u/s 148 (for A.Y 2019-20) the conditions as specified in sec. 149(1)(b) were required to be satisfied and which is not satisfied in appellant's case. Such condition

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

148A which AO failed to do in this case and hence consequential proceedings and order so passed u/s 147 has become bad in law vii) Before issuing notice u/s 148 (for A.Y 2019-20) the conditions as specified in sec. 149(1)(b) were required to be satisfied and which is not satisfied in appellant's case. Such condition