M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), , KOLKATA

bogus. As pointed out by Mr. Rai, learned senior standing counsel, the investigation report is general in nature not assessee specific. Therefore, we are required to see as to whether non-furnishing of the report which according to the revenue is available in the public domain would vitiate the proceedings on the ground that the assessee was put to prejudice

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

bogus. As pointed out by Mr. Rai, learned senior standing counsel, the investigation report is general in nature not assessee specific. Therefore, we are required to see as to whether non-furnishing of the report which according to the revenue is available in the public domain would vitiate the proceedings on the ground that the assessee was put to prejudice

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1),, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

bogus. As pointed out by Mr. Rai, learned senior standing counsel, the investigation report is general in nature not assessee specific. Therefore, we are required to see as to whether non-furnishing of the report which according to the revenue is available in the public domain would vitiate the proceedings on the ground that the assessee was put to prejudice

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), , KOLKATA

bogus. As pointed out by Mr. Rai, learned senior standing counsel, the investigation report is general in nature not assessee specific. Therefore, we are required to see as to whether non-furnishing of the report which according to the revenue is available in the public domain would vitiate the proceedings on the ground that the assessee was put to prejudice

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC - 3(3),, KOLKATA

bogus. As pointed out by Mr. Rai, learned senior standing counsel, the investigation report is general in nature not assessee specific. Therefore, we are required to see as to whether non-furnishing of the report which according to the revenue is available in the public domain would vitiate the proceedings on the ground that the assessee was put to prejudice

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3.1, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

bogus. As pointed out by Mr. Rai, learned senior standing counsel, the investigation report is general in nature not assessee specific. Therefore, we are required to see as to whether non-furnishing of the report which according to the revenue is available in the public domain would vitiate the proceedings on the ground that the assessee was put to prejudice

D.C.I.T., CC - 3(1),, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

bogus. As pointed out by Mr. Rai, learned senior standing counsel, the investigation report is general in nature not assessee specific. Therefore, we are required to see as to whether non-furnishing of the report which according to the revenue is available in the public domain would vitiate the proceedings on the ground that the assessee was put to prejudice

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), KOLKATA

bogus. As pointed out by Mr. Rai, learned senior standing counsel, the investigation report is general in nature not assessee specific. Therefore, we are required to see as to whether non-furnishing of the report which according to the revenue is available in the public domain would vitiate the proceedings on the ground that the assessee was put to prejudice

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), , KOLKATA

bogus. As pointed out by Mr. Rai, learned senior standing counsel, the investigation report is general in nature not assessee specific. Therefore, we are required to see as to whether non-furnishing of the report which according to the revenue is available in the public domain would vitiate the proceedings on the ground that the assessee was put to prejudice

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

bogus. As pointed out by Mr. Rai, learned senior standing counsel, the investigation report is general in nature not assessee specific. Therefore, we are required to see as to whether non-furnishing of the report which according to the revenue is available in the public domain would vitiate the proceedings on the ground that the assessee was put to prejudice

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

bogus. As pointed out by Mr. Rai, learned senior standing counsel, the investigation report is general in nature not assessee specific. Therefore, we are required to see as to whether non-furnishing of the report which according to the revenue is available in the public domain would vitiate the proceedings on the ground that the assessee was put to prejudice

ASHOK KUMAR AGARWAL,JHARKHAND vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

bogus expenditure and not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of assessee’s business. So total commission of Rs.74,35,828.00 debited to profit & loss account is hereby disallowed and added to total income of the assessee.” 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A), who also confirmed the action of AO that the nature of services rendered

ACIT, CIR-43 , KOLKATA vs. M/S SHYAMLAL IRON & STEEL CO., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section. It is the duty of the AO to pin point the defect and bring it out clearly and explicitly in the Assessment Order by marshalling the pertinent facts. In the instant case, the appellant is an individual whose accounts are statutorily audited and there are not adverse observations in this regard. No specific defects have been noticed

ECONOMIC MEDICAL STORES ,HOOGHLY vs. JCIT, RANGE - 1, HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, V.P & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.118/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Economic Medical Stores Vs. Jcit, Range-I, Hooghly 23/1, Panchanantala Street, P.O & P.S. Rishra, Dist: Hooghly, Pin- 712101. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaafe8315Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

197 of the Act. Learned authorized representative’s case accordingly is that since the impugned TDS deduction required involves a very miniscule percentage, both the learned lower authorities have erred in invoking the impugned disallowance on the entire sales commission of Rs.33,89,205/-. 4. The Revenue strongly supports both the lower authorities’ action in making impugned disallowance

NAVANSH VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

197 (Del)], "it involves three ingredients, namely, the proof regarding the identity of the share applicants, their creditworthiness to purchase the shares and the genuineness of the transaction as a whole". That is the approach adopted by Hon'ble Courts above all along. In the case of CIT v. United Commercial and Industrial

ITO, WARD - 56(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PKS HOLDINGS, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 1677/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2007-08 I.T.O., Ward-56(2) -Vs.- M/S. Pks .Holdings Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaifp7778G] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Jcit, Sr.Dr For The Respondent : Shri A.K.Updhay, Ar

bogus or excessive. Hence, the addition of Rs.66,00,000 is deleted.” 22. We have heard the rival submissions. The learned DR reiterated stand of the AO as contained in the order of assessment. The learned AR relied on the order of the CIT(A). We have considered the rival submissions. The law is well settled that any payment

ACIT-CIR. 1, DURGAPUR vs. DUTTA AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD., DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.189/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Circle-1, Durgapur.....................…..................….…............…..….. Appellant Vs. Dutta Automobiles Pvt. Ltd............................................…..............……. Respondent Nachan Road, Benachity, Durgapur-713213. [Pan: Aaccd5008Q] Appearances By: Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 28, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 07, 2022 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Durgapur [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

bogus liability being created was there as held by the Assessing Officer. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal is not perverse. Section 68 in the facts of the case had no applicability. The question is, thus, answered in favour of the assessee. The appeal is, therefore

MANISH PARASRAMPURIA,KOLKATA vs. A.O., NFAC / D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-43, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

bogus or Sham transaction which Is nothing but a colourable device to defraud the revenue and to channelize the fund from undisclosed sources to a legitimate form of income. 7.1.1 In view of above, the entire sale consideration (net) of Rs.7,31,417/- (Sale consideration shown under LTCG as enumerated above) is treated as Unexplained Cash Credit