DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND SPONGE AND IRON PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

iii. DCIT vs Chein Hsing Tannery, in ITA No. 1629/Kol/2017 - Briefly stated facts of the case is that the assessing officer noticed that the assessee had indulged into obtaining fake bills of the raw materials from four unregistered parties with the sales tax. The assessing officer observed that all the parties hom whom the sad purchases have been made were

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND CEMENT & ROOFINGS PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

iii. DCIT vs Chein Hsing Tannery, in ITA No. 1629/Kol/2017 - Briefly stated facts of the case is that the assessing officer noticed that the assessee had indulged into obtaining fake bills of the raw materials from four unregistered parties with the sales tax. The assessing officer observed that all the parties hom whom the sad purchases have been made were

GOPAL & SONS HUF,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 32(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

iii. DCIT vs Chein Hsing Tannery, in ITA No. 1629/Kol/2017 - Briefly stated facts of the case is that the assessing officer noticed that the assessee had indulged into obtaining fake bills of the raw materials from four unregistered parties with the sales tax. The assessing officer observed that all the parties hom whom the sad purchases have been made were

OM FORGING & ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE PR. CIT-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

iii) Divya Enterprise : Rs.32,67,888/- iv) Kamal Traders : Rs.34,03,534/- In all the bogus purchases for this year was Rs.72,84,304/-. 5. The AO while concluding the assessment u/s 147 of the Act in his order dated 30.03.2015 for both the assessment years issued notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act calling upon

ACIT, CC-3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SNOWTEX INVESTMENT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.) Asstt. Year : 2012-13 A.C.I.T, Cc-3(2), Kolkata Vs M/S. Snowtex Investment Ltd. Pan: Aaecs 0334C (Assessee/Department) (Respondent/Assessee)

purchase and sale of shares, granting and taking of loans and advances. With regard to investment under the head 'Share Application Money', the closing balance as on, 31-03-2012 was Rs. 46,09,34,000/- and the opening balance was Rs. 18,99,60,000/-. Hence, an amount of Rs.27,09,74,000/- was invested in share application money

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTHAN ENGINEERING & INDUSTRIES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.952/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

iii) being Kalimata Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. The assessing officerin the order has mentioned that it had issued notice u/s 133(6) to all such parties but they could not be traced and after that Inspector was also deputed who also failed to find the whereabouts of such parties and hence these additions were made by the assessing officer. The assessing

M/S. HINDISTHAN ENGINEEING & INDISTRIES LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -5 KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.952/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

iii) being Kalimata Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. The assessing officerin the order has mentioned that it had issued notice u/s 133(6) to all such parties but they could not be traced and after that Inspector was also deputed who also failed to find the whereabouts of such parties and hence these additions were made by the assessing officer. The assessing

SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR TEKRIWAL,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 10, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1134/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11)

2)/142(1) and further requisitions made during the course of assessment proceeding, the A/R of the assessee appeared from time to time and produced/ submitted necessary details/documents Binod Kumar Tekriwal HUF &Ors. ITA Nos.1134-1136/Kol/2018 Assessment Year:2010-11 as per requisitions in relation to the issues raised by the Ld. Pr. C.I.T., which were examined. Therefore

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

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1134/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11)

2)/142(1) and further requisitions made during the course of assessment proceeding, the A/R of the assessee appeared from time to time and produced/ submitted necessary details/documents Binod Kumar Tekriwal HUF &Ors. ITA Nos.1134-1136/Kol/2018 Assessment Year:2010-11 as per requisitions in relation to the issues raised by the Ld. Pr. C.I.T., which were examined. Therefore

SANDIP KUMAR TEKRIWAL HUF,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 10, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1134/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11)

2)/142(1) and further requisitions made during the course of assessment proceeding, the A/R of the assessee appeared from time to time and produced/ submitted necessary details/documents Binod Kumar Tekriwal HUF &Ors. ITA Nos.1134-1136/Kol/2018 Assessment Year:2010-11 as per requisitions in relation to the issues raised by the Ld. Pr. C.I.T., which were examined. Therefore

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. LUCKY GOLD STAR COMPANY LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

17,214/-. 5.2 As regards applicability of the provisions of section 40A(2)((b) and section 37 of the Act for disallowance of gross business loss on silks fabrics, I have already given my findings while deciding appeal for assessment year 2013- 14. For similar reason the disallowance u/s. 40A(2)(b) and 37 of the Act is considered

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. LUCKY GOLD STAR COMPANY LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

17,214/-. 5.2 As regards applicability of the provisions of section 40A(2)((b) and section 37 of the Act for disallowance of gross business loss on silks fabrics, I have already given my findings while deciding appeal for assessment year 2013- 14. For similar reason the disallowance u/s. 40A(2)(b) and 37 of the Act is considered

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)

iii) The reassessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of information received from the Director of Income-tax (Investigation) that the petitioner had introduced money amounting to Rs.5 lakhs during F.Y.2002-03 as stated in the annexure. According to the information, the amount received from a company, S, was nothing but an accommodation entry and the assessee was the beneficiary

ITO WD 48(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI PUSPAL KUMAR DAS, HOWRAH

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, A.M. & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, J.M.)

17,000 TABLE-l, SI.No.8 9 M/s. Mritunjoy Treding Co. 56,190 TABLE-l, SI.No.9 10 M/s. Chatterjee Kundu & Co. 2,848 TABLE-5, SI.No.2 11 M/s. Mehta Enterprise 1,01,455 TABLE-7,SI.No.l 12 M/s. Combat Chemicals Pvt.1,24,618 TABLE-7, SI.No.2 Ltd. 13 M/s. Raj & Raj Pvt. Ltd. 2

M/S COALSALE CO.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-34, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

2) was issued and served upon the assessee. On scrutiny of the accounts, it revealed to the ld. Assessing Officer that the assessee had claimed a deduction of Rs.35,00,000/- under section 35(1)(ii) on a donation of Rs.20,00,000/- to School of Human Genetics and Population Health. The ld. Assessing Officer confronted the assessee with regard

HIRALAL BHANDARI, LEGAL HAIR OF LATE CHAMPALAL BHANDARI,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-37, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

2) was issued and served upon the assessee. On scrutiny of the accounts, it revealed to the ld. Assessing Officer that the assessee had claimed a deduction of Rs.35,00,000/- under section 35(1)(ii) on a donation of Rs.20,00,000/- to School of Human Genetics and Population Health. The ld. Assessing Officer confronted the assessee with regard

REACHASIA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-29, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

2) was issued and served upon the assessee. On scrutiny of the accounts, it revealed to the ld. Assessing Officer that the assessee had claimed a deduction of Rs.35,00,000/- under section 35(1)(ii) on a donation of Rs.20,00,000/- to School of Human Genetics and Population Health. The ld. Assessing Officer confronted the assessee with regard

PS MAGNUM,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-29, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

2) was issued and served upon the assessee. On scrutiny of the accounts, it revealed to the ld. Assessing Officer that the assessee had claimed a deduction of Rs.35,00,000/- under section 35(1)(ii) on a donation of Rs.20,00,000/- to School of Human Genetics and Population Health. The ld. Assessing Officer confronted the assessee with regard