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

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

2. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred both in law and on facts by setting aside the assessment to the Learned Assessing Officer for fresh assessment under the powers of Section 251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of an order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B and not under Section

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

2. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred both in law and on facts by setting aside the assessment to the Learned Assessing Officer for fresh assessment under the powers of Section 251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of an order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B and not under Section

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]

2). Under that section he had to give reasons for issuing a notice under section 148. He should have some prima facie grounds before him for taking action under section 148. His conclusion that there was a case for investigating the truth of the alleged transactions was not the same thing as saying that there were reasons for the issue

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]

2). Under that section he had to give reasons for issuing a notice under section 148. He should have some prima facie grounds before him for taking action under section 148. His conclusion that there was a case for investigating the truth of the alleged transactions was not the same thing as saying that there were reasons for the issue

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, 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, CC - 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

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

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

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

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

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