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

149(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ITA Nos.: 179 & 180/KOL/2025 AYs: 2011-12 & 2015-16 Nezone Tubes Limited. 7. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred both in law and on facts by failing to adjudicate the 7 ground that the Learned Assessing Officer passed the order without considering the submissions filed by the appellant

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

149(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ITA Nos.: 179 & 180/KOL/2025 AYs: 2011-12 & 2015-16 Nezone Tubes Limited. 7. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred both in law and on facts by failing to adjudicate the 7 ground that the Learned Assessing Officer passed the order without considering the submissions filed by the appellant

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

bogus and such\naction is bad in law and in view of the facts and in the\ncircumstances the addition so made is liable to be deleted and\nit may be held accordingly\n16. Without prejudice to Grounds No. 14 & 15 above, the payment\nmade to the said vendor (i.e. Reeja Trading Private Ltd.) were\nthrough banking channel

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

bogus and such\naction is bad in law and in view of the facts and in the\ncircumstances the addition so made is liable to be deleted and\nit may be held accordingly.\n16. Without prejudice to Grounds No. 14 & 15 above, the payment\nmade to the said vendor (i.e. Reeja Trading Private Ltd.) were\nthrough banking channel

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

bogus and such\naction is bad in law and in view of the facts and in the\ncircumstances the addition so made is liable to be deleted and\nit may be held accordingly.\n16. Without prejudice to Grounds No. 14 & 15 above, the payment\nmade to the said vendor (i.e. Reeja Trading Private Ltd.) were\nthrough banking channel

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

bogus and such\naction is bad in law and in view of the facts and in the\ncircumstances the addition so made is liable to be deleted and\nit may be held accordingly.\n16. Without prejudice to Grounds No. 14 & 15 above, the payment\nmade to the said vendor (i.e. Reeja Trading Private Ltd.) were\nthrough banking channel

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

bogus and such\naction is bad in law and in view of the facts and in the\ncircumstances the addition so made is liable to be deleted and\nit may be held accordingly.\n16. Without prejudice to Grounds No. 14 & 15 above, the payment\nmade to the said vendor (i.e. Reeja Trading Private Ltd.) were\nthrough banking channel

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

bogus and such\naction is bad in law and in view of the facts and in the\ncircumstances the addition so made is liable to be deleted and\nit may be held accordingly.\n16. Without prejudice to Grounds No. 14 & 15 above, the payment\nmade to the said vendor (i.e. Reeja Trading Private Ltd.) were\nthrough banking channel

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 and such\naction is bad in law and in view of the facts and in the\ncircumstances the addition so made is liable to be deleted and\nit may be held accordingly.\n16. Without prejudice to Grounds No. 14 & 15 above, the payment\nmade to the said vendor (i.e. Reeja Trading Private Ltd.) were\nthrough banking channel

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

bogus and such\naction is bad in law and in view of the facts and in the\ncircumstances the addition so made is liable to be deleted and\nit may be held accordingly.\n16. Without prejudice to Grounds No. 14 & 15 above, the payment\nmade to the said vendor (i.e. Reeja Trading Private Ltd.) were\nthrough banking channel

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

bogus and such\naction is bad in law and in view of the facts and in the\ncircumstances the addition so made is liable to be deleted and\nit may be held accordingly.\n16. Without prejudice to Grounds No. 14 & 15 above, the payment\nmade to the said vendor (i.e. Reeja Trading Private Ltd.) were\nthrough banking channel

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

bogus and such\naction is bad in law and in view of the facts and in the\ncircumstances the addition so made is liable to be deleted and\nit may be held accordingly.\n16. Without prejudice to Grounds No. 14 & 15 above, the payment\nmade to the said vendor (i.e. Reeja Trading Private Ltd.) were\nthrough banking channel

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

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

ACIT, CIRCLLE-34, KOLKATA vs. SUBHAS KUMAR KEDIA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1677/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Acit, Circle-34, Kolkata Vs Subhas Kumar Kedia, 41, N.S.Road, Kolkata Pan No. :Afnpk 9669 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Ms. Shreya Loyalka, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 05.06.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- I) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Erred In Quashing The Order U/S.148A(D) & All Subsequent Proceedings. Ii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Failed To Acknowledge The Fact That The Assesse Had Not Expressed Any Grievance Against The Validity Of Order U/S 148A(D) By Moving Any Writ Petition Which Should Have Been Done In Case Of Any Grievance After Getting The Sald Order U/S.148A(D). Iii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Erred In Quashing The Order When The Ld. Cit(A) Has No Jurisdiction To Deal With The Question Whether The 148A(D) Order Was Passed Validly Or Properly As An Order U/S.148A(D) Is Not An Appealable Order Before Ld. Cit(A) As Per Section 246A.

149(1)(a) of the Act would apply. 10. As indicated above, the specified authority changes depending on the time Simit prescribed in Section 151 of the Act. It is on this account that there is linkage between ruling rendered in Ganesh Dass Khanna's case (supra) and the instant matters 11. It may also be noted that in Ganesh

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

bogus shareholders, the Revenue can reopen their individual assessment and addition cannot be made in the hands of the recipient company: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the assessment order as the transaction entered into by the assessee was a scheme for laundering black money into white money

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

bogus shareholders, the Revenue can reopen their individual assessment and addition cannot be made in the hands of the recipient company: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the assessment order as the transaction entered into by the assessee was a scheme for laundering black money into white money

AMIR INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-34(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 147 of the Act vide assessment order dated 17.12.2019 whereby he made an addition of Rs. 6,05,426/- on the ground that the going through the accounts it is nowhere found the entry of bogus bill of Rs. 6,05,426/-. It is alleged by the assessing authority that he had some information that one Sh. Manoj