MRS. PREMLATA TEKRIWAL ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 10, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri A. T. Varkey

3% of the bogus purchases. He was of the view that as per section 69C of the Act there is no scope for partial disallowance under the said provision. After considering the reply of the assessee at para 10 of this order he ordered as follows: 10. Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as stated

MRS. PREMLATA TEKRIWAL ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 10, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri A. T. Varkey

3% of the bogus purchases. He was of the view that as per section 69C of the Act there is no scope for partial disallowance under the said provision. After considering the reply of the assessee at para 10 of this order he ordered as follows: 10. Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as stated

BINOD KUMAR TEKRIWAL ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 10, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri A. T. Varkey

3% of the bogus purchases. He was of the view that as per section 69C of the Act there is no scope for partial disallowance under the said provision. After considering the reply of the assessee at para 10 of this order he ordered as follows: 10. Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as stated

MRS. PREMLATA TEKRIWAL ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 10, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri A. T. Varkey

3% of the bogus purchases. He was of the view that as per section 69C of the Act there is no scope for partial disallowance under the said provision. After considering the reply of the assessee at para 10 of this order he ordered as follows: 10. Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as stated

BINOD KUMAR TEKRIWAL ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 10, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri A. T. Varkey

3% of the bogus purchases. He was of the view that as per section 69C of the Act there is no scope for partial disallowance under the said provision. After considering the reply of the assessee at para 10 of this order he ordered as follows: 10. Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as stated

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

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

DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S DOTEX MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objections are also dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

153 referred to as the relevant assessment year)." 27. It is established principle of interpretation of statutes, that the Parliament is presumed to be not extravagant, in using the words, and therefore, every word used in the section, is required to be given its due meaning. 28. If considered on that principle, leaving apart for the moment, the aspect

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. VEDA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

3) of the Act. It was argued that if the purchases from the aforesaid three parties were to be disbelieved, then the GP% would arrive at 60% which was unachievable in their line of export business. Finally it was argued without prejudice to the above, that if the purchases have not been effected through the aforesaid three parties , then

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. VEDA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

3) of the Act. It was argued that if the purchases from the aforesaid three parties were to be disbelieved, then the GP% would arrive at 60% which was unachievable in their line of export business. Finally it was argued without prejudice to the above, that if the purchases have not been effected through the aforesaid three parties , then

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(3), KOLKATA vs. M/S. GRD COMMODITIES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the cross objections of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] It(Ss)A Nos.120 To123/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2012-13

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, unless any income chargeable

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

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

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. G.S. ATWAL & COMPANY (ENGINEERS) PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and Cross

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

purchase of those goods by alleged brick-Kilen owners, etc. It has filed its return of income for A.Y. 2011-12 on 12.08.2011 disclosing total income of Rs.2,68,79,830/-. Similarly in A.Y. 2012-13, it has filed its return of income on 18.09.2012 declaring total income at ‘NIL’. The assessment order was passed on 30.03.2015 [under section

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

153 referred to as the relevant assessment\nyear.\n• It may be noted here that the words used in Sec 147, is \"if the AO has\nreason to believe\" and not merely \"If AO believes\" or if AO has reason to\nsuspect\". The words \"reason to believe\" is much stronger that \"if AO\nbelieves\" or \"If AO has reason

V2 RETAIL LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

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

bogus purchases for Rs.25,65,05,225/- F.Y. 2007-08 (pertaining to A.Y.2008-09) from various persons namely Shri Nirbhay Shankar Gupta, Shri Shyam Shankar Gupta, Shri Rajeev Kumar Gupta and Shri Madan Gupta of Delhi. Therefore, I have reason to believe that income to the extent of Rs.25,65,05,225/ - has escaped assessment.” 5. The issue is whether

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. V2 RETAIL LTD., NEW DELHI

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

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

bogus purchases for Rs.25,65,05,225/- F.Y. 2007-08 (pertaining to A.Y.2008-09) from various persons namely Shri Nirbhay Shankar Gupta, Shri Shyam Shankar Gupta, Shri Rajeev Kumar Gupta and Shri Madan Gupta of Delhi. Therefore, I have reason to believe that income to the extent of Rs.25,65,05,225/ - has escaped assessment.” 5. The issue is whether