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.

section 151 of the new regime read with TOLA, where applicable. 8. We also note that the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court has been further followed by the coordinate benches of the Tribunal in the cases of Manish Financial, passed in ITA No.5055&5050/Mum/2024, dated 02.12.2024 and Surya Ferrous Alloys Pvt. Ltd., 169 taxmann.com 736 (Mum), wherein

1.INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. ANUSHREYA INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Anushreya Investment Private Kolkata Limited P-7, Chowringhee Square, 5Th Floor, Mangalam-A, 24 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan Hemanta Basu Sarani, Vs. Poorva, Kolkata-700069, Kolkata-700001, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacca3658B Assessee By : Shri N.S. Saini, Ar Revenue By : Shri Susanta Saha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 31.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

bogus short-term capital loss entries and accordingly, added the same to the income amounting to ₹3,32,62,350 under Section 68 of the Act. 2.2. The learned CIT (A) after taking into account the submission and contentions of the assessee and documentary evidences furnished, deleted the addition on merit. However, the issue of validity of assessment raised

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]

purchases were to be examined and in view of the said fact he has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and accordingly reopened the assessment under section 147 of the Act. We find merit in the contentions and arguments of the Ld. A.R. that the AO has not formed any independent belief or recorded

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]

purchases were to be examined and in view of the said fact he has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and accordingly reopened the assessment under section 147 of the Act. We find merit in the contentions and arguments of the Ld. A.R. that the AO has not formed any independent belief or recorded

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 claim of purchase has escaped assessment in the meaning of section 147 of the income Tax Act, 1961.” 8. In reply the assessee raised the following objections: “Please refer to your letter dated 02.08.2018 giving us the reasons recorded by you under section 148(2) of the Income Tax Act before issue of the Notice under section

SUBODH CHANDRA DAS,HOOGHLY vs. I.T.O.,WARD-23(3), HOOGHLY

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble) Ita No. 2246 & 2247/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13

purchase and sale of raw jute, edible oils, seasonal fruits etc. He filed his return of income on 07/03/2012 for the Assessment Year 2011-12 and on 19/09/2012 for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessing Officer received information from DDIT (Inv.), Unit-1, Kolkata [DDIT], and based on this information he recorded reasons for reopening the assessments and thereafter

SUBODH CHANDRA DAS,HOOGHLY vs. I.T.O.,WARD-23(3), HOOGHLY

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble) Ita No. 2246 & 2247/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13

purchase and sale of raw jute, edible oils, seasonal fruits etc. He filed his return of income on 07/03/2012 for the Assessment Year 2011-12 and on 19/09/2012 for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessing Officer received information from DDIT (Inv.), Unit-1, Kolkata [DDIT], and based on this information he recorded reasons for reopening the assessments and thereafter

M/S. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result Ground no. 1 & 3 of the revenue are allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd…….............................................................……………………..Appellant 27, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aaecs 0765 R] Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-12 Kolkata……...............................…….…..Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 80-IA(13) does not apply. Explanation to section 80- IA(13) merely distinguishes between a developer and works contractor. It clarifies that a works contractor shall not be included in the category of 'developer' u/s 80-1A. Thus, the Explanation clearly does not apply to O&M projects. Hence, deduction of Rs. 35,16,9411- claimed

ACIT, CIRCLE-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result Ground no. 1 & 3 of the revenue are allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd…….............................................................……………………..Appellant 27, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aaecs 0765 R] Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-12 Kolkata……...............................…….…..Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 80-IA(13) does not apply. Explanation to section 80- IA(13) merely distinguishes between a developer and works contractor. It clarifies that a works contractor shall not be included in the category of 'developer' u/s 80-1A. Thus, the Explanation clearly does not apply to O&M projects. Hence, deduction of Rs. 35,16,9411- claimed

M/S. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result Ground no. 1 & 3 of the revenue are allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd…….............................................................……………………..Appellant 27, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aaecs 0765 R] Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-12 Kolkata……...............................…….…..Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 80-IA(13) does not apply. Explanation to section 80- IA(13) merely distinguishes between a developer and works contractor. It clarifies that a works contractor shall not be included in the category of 'developer' u/s 80-1A. Thus, the Explanation clearly does not apply to O&M projects. Hence, deduction of Rs. 35,16,9411- claimed

ACIT, CIRCLE-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result Ground no. 1 & 3 of the revenue are allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd…….............................................................……………………..Appellant 27, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aaecs 0765 R] Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-12 Kolkata……...............................…….…..Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 80-IA(13) does not apply. Explanation to section 80- IA(13) merely distinguishes between a developer and works contractor. It clarifies that a works contractor shall not be included in the category of 'developer' u/s 80-1A. Thus, the Explanation clearly does not apply to O&M projects. Hence, deduction of Rs. 35,16,9411- claimed

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

bogus purchases is in tune with the consistent view of the tribunal and different high courts in similar nature of cases. That being the case, in our view, the exercise of power under section.263 of the Act in the facts of the present case is invalid. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the leaned PCIT under section

SHRI JYOTI MOHAN MALL,KOLKATA vs. CIT, KOL - XV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narsimha Charyassessment Year:2003-04

purchase and sale of shares was not matching with the transaction of the stock exchange therefore, the impugned loss was bogus. The learned DR vehemently supported the order of learned CIT u/s 263 of the Act. In the rejoinder, the ld AR submitted that the events which have taken place subsequent to the assessment proceedings cannot be the basis

M/S VINAYAK FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

bogus purchases and, to said extent, income had escaped\nassessinent.\n12.13 Hon'ble ITAT Delhi vide Order dated 10.09.2015 In the case of ITO vs. Mis Shakti\nSecurities Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.3129/DEL/2010] quashed the reassessment proceedings\nby holding that that merely based on investigation wing information without surveillance\nof substantiation and without any statement being mentioned therein and without nature

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 to the tune of ₹54,94,151/- from shell company M/s Ranisati Metal Industries, M/s Ranisati Industries Ltd and TIF Castings Limited. Accordingly, notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act was issued on 30.03.2023. The ld. AR submitted before us that the second notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act dated 25.04.2023 was invalid since, the time period

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 to the tune of ₹54,94,151/- from shell company M/s Ranisati Metal Industries, M/s Ranisati Industries Ltd and TIF Castings Limited. Accordingly, notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act was issued on 30.03.2023. The ld. AR submitted before us that the second notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act dated 25.04.2023 was invalid since, the time period