DCIT, CIRCLE - 48, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SANJAY JAISWAL, HOWRAH

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is allowed , appeals of the assessee and revenue are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: : Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

1) and 143(2) of the Act were issued on the assessee on 12.12.2007 calling for certain details pursuant to the order of Tribunal. Hence it can safely be concluded that the tribunal order had been served before 12.12.2007 and hence the time limit for completion of fresh assessment in terms of section 153(2A) of the Act would

ITO, WARD-1(2),, SILIGURI vs. BINOY AGARWAL, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 69C On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals)\nconcluded that since Assessing Officer did not doubt genuineness of payments made\nthrough banking channels and accepted total sales, entire purchases couldn't be\ndisallowed Instead, only profit element was considered, restricting unexplained\nexpenditure to 8 per cent of total purchases Tribunal accepted factual finding\nrecorded by Commissioner (Appeals) - Whether sinceboth Commissioner (Appeals)\nand

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. ALEMBIC MERCHANTS PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue fails

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Central Cir-1(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Alembic Merchants Pvt. Ltd Pan: Aacca 0918Q Appellant Respondent

153 (Bom) page 4 para 12 to 14) vi) KSS Petron Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT ITA No. 224/Mum/2014 (referred to page 3 para 8- 11) vii) PCIT Vs. Tupperware India Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 236 Taxman 494 (referred to page 3 para 6 and 9) viii) DCIT Vs. National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development ITA No.4964/Mum/2014 (referred to page

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

section 69C of the Act.\nI have taken into consideration the submissions of the appellant,\nalready extracted above and the findings of the AO as well as the\nmaterial placed on record, It is noted that the impugned addition\nemanated from the information available with the Department,\nwhich was gathered during the course of search and seizure\noperation conducted under

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

section 69C of the Act.\nI have taken into consideration the submissions of the appellant,\nalready extracted above and the findings of the AO as well as the\nmaterial placed on record, It is noted that the impugned addition\nemanated from the information available with the Department,\nwhich was gathered during the course of search and seizure\noperation conducted under

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

section 69C of the Act.\nI have taken into consideration the submissions of the appellant,\nalready extracted above and the findings of the AO as well as the\nmaterial placed on record, It is noted that the impugned addition\nemanated from the information available with the Department,\nwhich was gathered during the course of search and seizure\noperation conducted under

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

section 132(4) of the Act dated\n02.12.2018, wherein they had admitted that they were arranging\ncash loans in lieu of commission. It was observed that one\npromissory note on the letterhead of the assessee was also seized,\nwhich stated that, the appellant was in receipt of Rs.50,000/-from\none Mr. Amit Agarwal. According to the AO, there

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 bills are stated to be ₹31,20,073/- and ₹78,350/-. The assessee objected stating that the figures are wrong and this fact is accepted by the ld. CIT(A) who states that the actual purchases was only ₹5,98,336/-; as the sales are also reflected in VAT return and sales tax return filed with the Central

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

section 132(4) of the Act dated\n02.12.2018, wherein they had admitted that they were arranging\ncash loans in lieu of commission. It was observed that one\npromissory note on the letterhead of the assessee was also seized,\nwhich stated that, the appellant was in receipt of Rs.50,000/-from\none Mr. Amit Agarwal. According to the AO, there

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

section 132(4) of the Act dated\n02.12.2018, wherein they had admitted that they were arranging\ncash loans in lieu of commission. It was observed that one\npromissory note on the letterhead of the assessee was also seized,\nwhich stated that, the appellant was in receipt of Rs.50,000/-from\none Mr. Amit Agarwal. According to the AO, there

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S INDRADEV VYAPAAR PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

purchasing peace and assessment has been made based upon the aforesaid offerings, even if no assurance in writing is given by the searching party, it may be clearly inferred that such an inducement must have been given by the searching party. When only partial evidence or no evidence in support of concealment was detected during the search, why would

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ALISSA NIRMANS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

purchasing peace and assessment has been made based upon the aforesaid offerings, even if no assurance in writing is given by the searching party, it may be clearly inferred that such an inducement must have been given by the searching party. When only partial evidence or no evidence in support of concealment was detected during the search, why would

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CHAND TIE-UP PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

purchasing peace and assessment has been made based upon the aforesaid offerings, even if no assurance in writing is given by the searching party, it may be clearly inferred that such an inducement must have been given by the searching party. When only partial evidence or no evidence in support of concealment was detected during the search, why would

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI RAMAUTAR GROURISARIA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

purchasing peace and assessment has been made based upon the aforesaid offerings, even if no assurance in writing is given by the searching party, it may be clearly inferred that such an inducement must have been given by the searching party. When only partial evidence or no evidence in support of concealment was detected during the search, why would

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ASHARA VINIMAY PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

purchasing peace and assessment has been made based upon the aforesaid offerings, even if no assurance in writing is given by the searching party, it may be clearly inferred that such an inducement must have been given by the searching party. When only partial evidence or no evidence in support of concealment was detected during the search, why would

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PASUPATI COMMERCE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

purchasing peace and assessment has been made based upon the aforesaid offerings, even if no assurance in writing is given by the searching party, it may be clearly inferred that such an inducement must have been given by the searching party. When only partial evidence or no evidence in support of concealment was detected during the search, why would

M/S V.A.R.ALLOY & STEEL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

purchasing peace and assessment has been made based upon the aforesaid offerings, even if no assurance in writing is given by the searching party, it may be clearly inferred that such an inducement must have been given by the searching party. When only partial evidence or no evidence in support of concealment was detected during the search, why would

PURPLE SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,SURAT, GUJRAT vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

153 referred to as the relevant assessment: year)……… " Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of Section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, by reason of the failure

PURPLE SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,SURAT, GUJRAT vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

153 referred to as the relevant assessment: year)……… " Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of Section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, by reason of the failure