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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

purchase order received by the assessee regarding the alleged sale. Therefore, in the absence of adequate evidence it cannot be concluded that this sale was actually made during the year and it was not an accommodation entry. 3.3 As per section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained

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

purchase order received by the assessee regarding the alleged sale. Therefore, in the absence of adequate evidence it cannot be concluded that this sale was actually made during the year and it was not an accommodation entry. 3.3 As per section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained

DCIT, CC-2(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BALAJI AGRO PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Central Circle-2(4), M/S Balaji Agro Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, A5-6 Sarkarpool Maheshtala, 4Th Floor, 110 Shantipally, E.M. New Budge Budge Trunk Rd. Vs. Bypass, Kolkata-700107 Gopalpur 24 Paraganas South West Bengal Kolkata-700143, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcb9078M Assessee By : Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2025

153A of the Act was issued on 09.10.2021, which was complied with by the assessee by filing the return of income declaring the same ITA No.842 KOL 2025 Balaji Agro Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 2019-20 income as was declared in the return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act. The ld. AO issued questionnaire along with notice

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

DCIT,CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUMANGAL DEALMARK PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

purchase of shares is bogus. 5.3(c) In the assessment order, AO has alleged that Nilachal Ispat Pvt. Ltd. was generating cash by selling some of its low quality products in cash. AO has further alleged that proof of cash generation for the period 01-01-2016 to 30-09-2016 was found in the seized documents. However, appellant

DCIT,CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUMANGAL DEALMARK PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

purchase of shares is bogus. 5.3(c) In the assessment order, AO has alleged that Nilachal Ispat Pvt. Ltd. was generating cash by selling some of its low quality products in cash. AO has further alleged that proof of cash generation for the period 01-01-2016 to 30-09-2016 was found in the seized documents. However, appellant

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUMANGAL DEALMARK PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

purchase of shares is bogus. 5.3(c) In the assessment order, AO has alleged that Nilachal Ispat Pvt. Ltd. was generating cash by selling some of its low quality products in cash. AO has further alleged that proof of cash generation for the period 01-01-2016 to 30-09-2016 was found in the seized documents. However, appellant