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)

195 (SC), which is distinguishable on facts, as narrated above. In the assessee`s case, the assessee submitted before the AO audited books of accounts, details of purchases, details of sales, detail of quantity purchased, used in manufacturing activity ( in case of one assessee), opening stock, closing stock detail and reconciliation of quantity, as mentioned above, these facts were

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

195(SC), I am of the considered view that it is deemed fit and appropriate in the interest of justice to disallow the entire expenses claimed as purchases by the assessee, amounting to Rs.54,13,476/- being bogus purchases. Accordingly, I direct the A.O to reassess the income of the assessee for the relevant A.Y 2009-10 on the issue

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

195(SC), I am of the considered view that it is deemed fit and appropriate in the interest of justice to disallow the entire expenses claimed as purchases by the assessee, amounting to Rs.54,13,476/- being bogus purchases. Accordingly, I direct the A.O to reassess the income of the assessee for the relevant A.Y 2009-10 on the issue

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

195(SC), I am of the considered view that it is deemed fit and appropriate in the interest of justice to disallow the entire expenses claimed as purchases by the assessee, amounting to Rs.54,13,476/- being bogus purchases. Accordingly, I direct the A.O to reassess the income of the assessee for the relevant A.Y 2009-10 on the issue

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

195(SC), I am of the considered view that it is deemed fit and appropriate in the interest of justice to disallow the entire expenses claimed as purchases by the assessee, amounting to Rs.54,13,476/- being bogus purchases. Accordingly, I direct the A.O to reassess the income of the assessee for the relevant A.Y 2009-10 on the issue

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

195(SC), I am of the considered view that it is deemed fit and appropriate in the interest of justice to disallow the entire expenses claimed as purchases by the assessee, amounting to Rs.54,13,476/- being bogus purchases. Accordingly, I direct the A.O to reassess the income of the assessee for the relevant A.Y 2009-10 on the issue

BARDHAMAN DHARMARAJ PAPER MILL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.160/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Bardhaman Dharmaraj Paper Mill Pvt. Ltd.........................................……Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069. [Pan: Aaecb0141J] Vs. Pcit (Central), Asansol......….…..…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate & Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Md. Ghayasuddin, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 06, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 10, 2022 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 31.03.2021 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Pcit’) Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Brief Facts Are That The Assessment In This Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act To Verify The Transactions Of The Assessee With The Party M/S Siddhi Enterprises Due To Discrepancy Found In The Accounts. 3. The Assessing Officer Noted That The Assessee Had Failed To Prove The Genuineness Of The Purchases Made From M/S Siddhi Enterprises. However, He Further Noted That The Assessee Not Only Had Shown Such Purchases In The Books Of Account But Also Had Recorded Corresponding Sales Thereto. Therefore, The Assessing Officer Held That Since The

195, held that the Assessing Officer must have added the entire bogus purchases made from M/s Siddhi Enterprises instead of estimating the gross profit on the sales. The ld. PCIT further observed that the Assessing Officer should have also verified the genuineness of purchases from other parties also, as detailed in para 3 of the impugned order

DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

bogus because the purchases are supported by proper invoices duly reflected in the books of account. The payment reflected in the bank statement of the assessee. There is no evidence to show that the assessee has received cash back from the suppliers. I find that the assessee had discharged the initial onus of proving the genuineness of the transactions

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RANGE-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

bogus because the purchases are supported by proper invoices duly reflected in the books of account. The payment reflected in the bank statement of the assessee. There is no evidence to show that the assessee has received cash back from the suppliers. I find that the assessee had discharged the initial onus of proving the genuineness of the transactions

DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

bogus because the purchases are supported by proper invoices duly reflected in the books of account. The payment reflected in the bank statement of the assessee. There is no evidence to show that the assessee has received cash back from the suppliers. I find that the assessee had discharged the initial onus of proving the genuineness of the transactions

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RANGE-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

bogus because the purchases are supported by proper invoices duly reflected in the books of account. The payment reflected in the bank statement of the assessee. There is no evidence to show that the assessee has received cash back from the suppliers. I find that the assessee had discharged the initial onus of proving the genuineness of the transactions

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAJSHRI IRON INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

bogus invoice, theinference that the appellant company had taken accommodation entry cannot be accepted. ITA Nos.2385 & 2388/KOL/2024& CO Nos. 46 & 47/KOL/2025 Rajshri Iron Industries Private Limited; A.Ys. 2013-14 &2018-19 6.2.5. Further, it is seen from the assessment order that the AO also stated there could be achance for out of books purchases of coal by the appellant company

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAJSHRI IRON INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

bogus invoice, theinference that the appellant company had taken accommodation entry cannot be accepted. ITA Nos.2385 & 2388/KOL/2024& CO Nos. 46 & 47/KOL/2025 Rajshri Iron Industries Private Limited; A.Ys. 2013-14 &2018-19 6.2.5. Further, it is seen from the assessment order that the AO also stated there could be achance for out of books purchases of coal by the appellant company

DEPUTY COMMISSOENR OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

195 allowed the appeal by holding -that share capital/premium of Rs. 24,00,000/- received from the investors was not liable to be treated under Section 68 as unexplained credits and it should not be taxed in the hands of the appellant company. As indicated earlier, the Tribunal below dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. After hearing the learned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

195 allowed the appeal by holding -that share capital/premium of Rs. 24,00,000/- received from the investors was not liable to be treated under Section 68 as unexplained credits and it should not be taxed in the hands of the appellant company. As indicated earlier, the Tribunal below dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. After hearing the learned

ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. CONTEMPORARY INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

bogus purchase entries from various hawala dealers Suraj Timber Mart, Shyam Traders and Ronak Enterprises involving sums of Rs.1,50,175/-, Rs.8,15,195/- and Rs.2,57,217/- ITA No.715/Kol/2017 M/s Contemporary Industries Ltd. A.Y.2009-10 2 respectively. This culminated in section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)- 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AUXINITE SUPPLIERS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Auxinite Suppliers Private Tax (Cc)-3(1) Limited 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan 44/2A Jain Tower, Hazra Road, Vs. Poorva, 110 Shantipally, Kolkata- Kolkata-700019, West Bengal 700017, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecb3974H Co No. 11/Kol/2025 (Arising In Ita No. 139/Kol/2025 For A.Y. 2019-20) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Auxinite Suppliers Private Tax (Cc)-3(1) Limited 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan 44/2A Jain Tower, Hazra Road, Vs. Poorva, 110 Shantipally, Kolkata- Kolkata-700019, West Bengal 700017, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri Rajeeva Kumar & Giridhar Dhelia, Ars Revenue By : Shri V. Vidhyadhar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.04.2026

purchases made during the year have also not been disputed or doubted by the Ld. AO so as to bring the entire sale consideration to tax. It is also worthwhile to mention that the case of the appellant was also subject to regular assessment for the AY: 2017- 18, apart from AY: 2011-12 discussed earlier in this order

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