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

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

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

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

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.

2 of section 148, the prerequisite is there should be a valid notice. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the natice was held to be not sustainable. If that be so, the assessing officer cannot be stated to be empowered to make a roving enquiry into other issues which according to him came to his notice during the reassessment proceedings

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

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

A R UDYOG,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD 46(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

bogus, only the gross profit\nwas to be added. The assessee submitted that it had made purchases\nwith only two out of four parties i.e. (a) Durga Trading Corporation for\ninvoice value of ₹99,689/- and (b) Vasukinath Enterprise for invoice\nvalue of ₹1,45,758/- with the total amounting to ₹ 2,45,447/- while no\ntransactions whatsoever were made

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SAWANSUKHA JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, CO of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Sawansukhajewellers Acit, Circle-7(1), Private Limited 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, 4Th Floor, 9, Camac Street, Vs. Kolkata-700069, Kolkata-700017, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafcs2477R Co No. 32/Kol/2024 (Airing Out Of The Ita No. 1615/Kol/2024 For A.Y. 2018-19) Sawansukhajewellers Acit, Circle-7(1), Private Limited 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 4Th Floor, 9, Camac Street, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Kolkata-700017, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kapil Mondal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2025

2,20,05,564/- as unexplained expenditure under section 69C read with section 115BBE on the non-genuine nature of the purchases. In my view, given that sales were accepted as genuine by AO, it could be concluded that the above purchases could not be treated as non-genuine. Hence, there should be a reasonable estimation of the profit element

APL METALS LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(3), KOLKATA

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm I.T.A. No.297/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2018-19 Apl Metals Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, National C/O, Subash Agarwal & Faceless Assessment Centre, Associates, Advocates, Siddha Delhi. Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata- 700069. (Pan: Aacca4246P) (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 115BBE of the Act and added the alleged purchase of raw material of Rs.57,49,01,910/- and assessed the income accordingly. 6. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and filed detailed written submission in support of its contention that purchases were genuine and also enclosed the copy of GST returns, party wise details and quantity

ACIT, CC-2(1), KOL, KOLKATA vs. SHALIMAR HATCHERIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 546/Kol/2023) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Appellant Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 3Rd Floor, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 -Vs.- Shalimar Hatcheries Ltd.,......................Respondent 46C, Chowringhee Road, Park Street, 17Th Floor, Everest House, Kolkata-700071 [Pan: Aadcs6537J] - A N D - C.O. No. 13/Kol/2023 (In I.T.A. No. 546/Kol/2023) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Shalimar Hatcheries Ltd.,..................Cross Objector 46C, Chowringhee Road, Park Street, Kolkata-700071 [Pan: Aadcs6537J] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 Appearances By: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

153 taxmann.com 244 (Bombay) – Order dated 08.08.2023; (viii) Ferrous Infra Pvt. Ltd. –vs.- DCIT- 63 taxmann.com 201 (Delhi)- Order dated 21.05.2015. Sr. 1 to 8 (index) 5 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 & C.O. No. 13/KOL/2023 (in ITA No. 546/KOL/2023) Shalimar Hatcheries Ltd. The copies of these decisions have been filed before us as discernable from the above Index. 9. We have

MINA PRADHAN,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 42(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2017-18 is allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Rakesh Mishra

2 of 10 I.T.A. Nos.: 1587 & 1588/KOL/2024 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Mina Pradhan. 3. For that the CIT (A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.48,41,226/- u/s 69C of the Act on account of alleged bogus purchases made from M/s Sakaar Infra Nirman Pvt. Ltd. 4. For that the CIT (A) erred in not accepting the contention

MINA PRADHAN,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 42(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2017-18 is allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Rakesh Mishra

2 of 10 I.T.A. Nos.: 1587 & 1588/KOL/2024 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Mina Pradhan. 3. For that the CIT (A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.48,41,226/- u/s 69C of the Act on account of alleged bogus purchases made from M/s Sakaar Infra Nirman Pvt. Ltd. 4. For that the CIT (A) erred in not accepting the contention

M/S SWIFT VINTRADE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. CIT, KOLKATA-1I, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10

2) of the IT Act had come into effect only from assessment year 2013-14 that there was no yard stick either in the Company's Act or in the Income tax Act to fix or regulate share premium. iii) That the A.O. had conducted proper inquiry regarding the identity and creditworthiness of the shareholders. Confirmation letters along with

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

2) of section 148.\nIn response to the Notice u/s 148 of the IT Act, 1961, it is seen that you have not filed any\nVALID income tax retum, as on date. It is also seen that you have failed to comply with the\nNotice u/s 142 (1) of the IT Act, 1961 dated 08.10.2021. In view of the above

M/S. BNA COMMERCE PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

purchase, unsecured loans and bogus billing in lieu of commission. He facilitated the meeting of parties who need bogus bills and parties who provided the entry of bogus bills without involving himself or his dummies in the process in lieu of commission. M/s BNA Commerce Pvt. Ltd. PAN-AABCB0727D is one of the beneficiary received Rs.1,05,00,000/- from