ACIT, CIRCLE-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result Ground no. 1 & 3 of the revenue are allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd…….............................................................……………………..Appellant 27, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aaecs 0765 R] Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-12 Kolkata……...............................…….…..Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13

bogus bills, that the assessee had asked for cross examination of the supplier but same was not given, that the AO had not supplied the copy of the statements of Shiv Sagar to the assessee, that in the books of accounts of the assessee all the purchases and sales were recorded, that payments were made through banking channels, that

M/S. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result Ground no. 1 & 3 of the revenue are allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd…….............................................................……………………..Appellant 27, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aaecs 0765 R] Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-12 Kolkata……...............................…….…..Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13

bogus bills, that the assessee had asked for cross examination of the supplier but same was not given, that the AO had not supplied the copy of the statements of Shiv Sagar to the assessee, that in the books of accounts of the assessee all the purchases and sales were recorded, that payments were made through banking channels, that

M/S. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result Ground no. 1 & 3 of the revenue are allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd…….............................................................……………………..Appellant 27, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aaecs 0765 R] Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-12 Kolkata……...............................…….…..Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13

bogus bills, that the assessee had asked for cross examination of the supplier but same was not given, that the AO had not supplied the copy of the statements of Shiv Sagar to the assessee, that in the books of accounts of the assessee all the purchases and sales were recorded, that payments were made through banking channels, that

KALI KINKAR ROY,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, W 2(4), BWN, BURDWAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravia.Y. 2010-11

194C(7) and disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) does not arise as held by the Coordinate Bench supra, accordingly, the impugned addition made thereon shall go and thus, ground no’s 2 and 3 raised by the Assessee are allowed. 10. Ground no’s -3 and 4 are related to an addition of Rs.1,24,500/- made on account

ACIT, CIR-33, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI BISWAJIT GUHA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narsimha Chary

purchase cost to the appellant. In this view of the matter, the AO went wrong in not appreciating the facts of the instant case in proper perspective and making uncalled for disallowance in that regard. The addition of ₹25,32,484/- made u/s 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 194C of the Act is, therefore, directed to be deleted.” Being aggrieved

SHRI DILIP KUMAR NATHANY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-43(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2012-13

purchase is of Rs.5.42 crore and expenses are to the extent of Rs.30.56 lac. In view of the above the AO concluded that the expenses were inflated and TDS provision under section 194C were not complied with. On the contrary the appellant submitted that carriage inward is mainly a Charges paid on transporter, engaged by the supplier of whom

SANKAR MONDAL,NADIA vs. ITO, WARD-41(3), KOLKATA, NADIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2092/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sankar Mondal -Vs- Ito, Ward-41(3), Nadia [Pan: Aenpm 9348 C ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

bogus purchase of Rs. 11,14,285/- is added, then gross profit becomes 28% which is not possible to earn in the business in which the assessee is engaged. In view of the peculiar facts of the assessee’s case that he had used all the materials only in the execution of work for Railways and that the contract earnings

ACIT, CIR-29, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ANS LEATHER COMPANY, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1071/Kol/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Acit, Circle-29, Kolkata Vs. Ans Leather Company

bogus Sundry Creditor of Rs.14,84,385/-, is concerned, we note that sundry creditor of the assessee, Mr. Md. AkeelAhmed to the tune of Rs.14,84,385/- has been coming in the books of accounts of the assessee from the previous year, as an opening balance. This is not a liability generated in the assessment year under consideration. During

M/S. ANUBHAV INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., ,HOWRAH vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, KOLKATA - 5, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed and the appeal of the assessee for AY 2014-15 is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am]

bogus billing he accepts that the income from accommodation entries since not being disclosed in the return of income filed by the assessee has been rightly found to be at fault with. Therefore the order of Ld. PCIT finding fault with the AO’s action in not bringing to tax the income from accommodation entry is found

M/S ANUBHAV INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,HOWRAH vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-13(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed and the appeal of the assessee for AY 2014-15 is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am]

bogus billing he accepts that the income from accommodation entries since not being disclosed in the return of income filed by the assessee has been rightly found to be at fault with. Therefore the order of Ld. PCIT finding fault with the AO’s action in not bringing to tax the income from accommodation entry is found

SMT. SUCHARITA KAR,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-55(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

bogus sundry creditors and urged to allow the ground of appeal in this regard. 10. On the contrary, the ld.DR submits that it is not the onus on the revenue to prove the existence of liability and sundry creditors and argued that the assessee could not produce any such details of sundry creditors inspite of having sufficient opportunities. He also

M/S. SHIVANGI FASHIONS,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XXVIII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

bogus purchases in the facts and circumstances of the case. 1 -C-AM M/s. Shivangi Fashions 3.1. The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee is a partnership firm and is a wholesale Trader/ dealer in embroidered sarees. The return of income for the Asst Year 2006+07 was filed by the assessee showing total income

ITO, WD-29(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MAAKALI ENTERPRISE, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2008-09

purchased” is not tenable. In fact when the details of the required documents were furnished the disallowance of 20% of the total expenses claimed by the assessee considering this as bogus expenses is not justified. We uphold the observation made by the ld. CIT(A) in this regard. Consequently the expenses claimed to the tune of Rs.10,37,732/- cannot

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S LABORATORIES GRIFFON PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

section 194C would not be attracted in the later case. So to adjudicate this issue let us look into the relevant clauses of the agreement between assessee and M/s STP 9 ITA No.133/Kol/2016 & CO No.15/Cal/2016 Laboratories Griffon Pvt. Ltd., AY- 2011-12 regard, the relevant extracts of the said agreement dated 22.02.2010 ( page nos. 80-88 of the paper-book

M/S VISHAL IMPEX,KOLKATA vs. THE ITO, WD-33(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Bogus Purchase of Rs 19792/- 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(Appeals) has erred in dismissing the appeal in respect of disallowance of Rs 619108/- without reasonable consideration.” 3. First issue in ground No.1 is general in nature and does not require any separate adjudication. 4. It was observed

M/S SANGITA CONSTRUCTION CO.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-26(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11 M/S Sangita V/S. Income Tax Officer, Construction Co. Pujali Ward-26(1), Ayakar Budge Budge, Bhawan Dakshin 2, Kolkata-700138 Gariahat Road (South), [Pa No.Aavfs 7245 L] Kolkata-68 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri A.K. Tibrwal, Fca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sandeep Lakra, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 22-11-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 30-11-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Challenges Correctness Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7 Kolkata’S Order Dated 14.12.2015, Passed In Case No.262Cita-7R/Range-26/14-15, In Proceedings U/S. 143(3)/144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S First Substantive Ground Seeks To Challenge Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Disallowing / Adding Its Transport Charges Of ₹28,12,459/- On Account Of Non-Deduction Of Tds. The Cit(A)’S Appeal Discussion Qua The Instant Issue Reads As Under:- “2.0 Ground No.2 Is Related To The Addition Of Rs.28,12,459/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings The Assessing Officer Found That The Appellant Made Purchases Of Rs.16,60,901/- From Mr. Dinesh Gupta & Rs.11,51,558/- From M/S S. P Enterprise. The Enquiries Conducted By The A.O Revealed That The M/S S.P Enterprise Was Found To Be Non-Existent. Summons

194C and the appellant has not deducted TDS. In the case of Sri Dinesh Gupta, Mr. Surendra Pr. Gupta, father of Sri Dinesh Gupta, appeared and confirmed the transaction. The transaction was transport contract and the appellant has not made TDS on the payments made to Sri Dinesh Gupta. Therefore, in both the cases section 40(a)(ia) is attracted

ITO,WARD-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SHAHI ROADWAYS(P)LTD, HOWRAH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

194C( total of single payment in excess of Rs. 20,000/- is Rs. 3,13,259/- and aggregate payment to one single party in excess of Rs. 50,000/- is Rs.83,629/-) 3.2. The Learned DR vehemently supported the order of the Learned AO and argued that the details of bills were submitted before the Learned CITA for the first

M/S INDUSTRIAL PERFORATION INDIA (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O. WD - 5(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S Viswanethra Ravi

194C,' sub- section (5) proviso thereto, the aggregate amount of all the payments or credited should exceed only Rs.50,000/-, then the assessee shall be liable to deduct income-tax at source. 8. In view of our above discussion, the order of the Id. CIT(Appeals) has to be reversed. But before us, the Id. A.R. has taken a submission