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

251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of an order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B and not under Section 144 of the Act. 3. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred both in law and on facts by passing the order on 07/01/2025 at 11:26 IST, prior to the expiry

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

251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of an order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B and not under Section 144 of the Act. 3. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred both in law and on facts by passing the order on 07/01/2025 at 11:26 IST, prior to the expiry

UNISYS SOFTWARES AND HOLDING IND. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12

purchased the shares of Unisys Software and Holding Industries Ltd. are bogus/paper entities. 2.4. On the basis of above observation, it is evident that M/s Unisys Software and Holding Industries Ltd. had brought back its unaccounted income of Rs. 30,00,00,000/- in the A.Y. 2011-12 by way of issuing share capital and share premium. 2.5. In view

M/S AB (WINES) STORES,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, KOLKATA-14, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.901/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ab (Wines) Stores -Vs.- Pr. C.I.T., Kolkata-14 Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aajfa 6312 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri R.S.Biswas, Cit Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 Order

bogus especially when no material to this effect had been brought on record by the ld CIT. With respect to purchases from Shree Riddhi Siddhi and N.C.Shaw & Co, it was submitted that the ld CIT had not recorded a finding to the effect that the said parties does not exist or that there was a mismatch of purchases recorded

SUSANTA MALLICK,KALIKAPUR vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1),, KOLKATA

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

bogus claim of LTCG plus Rs.3.43 lakhs being the alleged commission @ 5%, paid to brokers ( entry providers ) . 5) The matter carried in appeal, has been dismissed by the Ld first appellate authority, in absence of any representation or any response to various notices issued by the Ld CIT ( A ) on at least three separate occasions ( as evident from para

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMAR KUMAR AGARAWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

bogus purchases." 8.2.6. Further, reliance is also placed in the case of 'M/S. Alokik Steels Pvt. Ltd Village vs Principal Commissioner Of Income on 3 March, 2021, ITA No. 861/JP/2019', the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur had held as under:- "Further, there is no dispute regarding the quantum of unaccounted turnover of Rs 1,77,95,859. The assessee has declared

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

bogus purchases." 8.2.6. Further, reliance is also placed in the case of 'M/S. Alokik Steels Pvt. Ltd Village vs Principal Commissioner Of Income on 3 March, 2021, ITA No. 861/JP/2019', the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur had held as under:- "Further, there is no dispute regarding the quantum of unaccounted turnover of Rs 1,77,95,859. The assessee has declared

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

bogus purchases." 8.2.6. Further, reliance is also placed in the case of 'M/S. Alokik Steels Pvt. Ltd Village vs Principal Commissioner Of Income on 3 March, 2021, ITA No. 861/JP/2019', the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur had held as under:- "Further, there is no dispute regarding the quantum of unaccounted turnover of Rs 1,77,95,859. The assessee has declared

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

bogus purchases." 8.2.6. Further, reliance is also placed in the case of 'M/S. Alokik Steels Pvt. Ltd Village vs Principal Commissioner Of Income on 3 March, 2021, ITA No. 861/JP/2019', the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur had held as under:- "Further, there is no dispute regarding the quantum of unaccounted turnover of Rs 1,77,95,859. The assessee has declared

AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 4(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

bogus purchases." 8.2.6. Further, reliance is also placed in the case of 'M/S. Alokik Steels Pvt. Ltd Village vs Principal Commissioner Of Income on 3 March, 2021, ITA No. 861/JP/2019', the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur had held as under:- "Further, there is no dispute regarding the quantum of unaccounted turnover of Rs 1,77,95,859. The assessee has declared

BHAGIRATHI ASSOCIATES,HOOGHLY vs. I.T.O WD - 1(2),HOOGHLY., HOOGHLY

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2006-07

section 40(a)(ia) in respect of the following payments made by the assessee totaling to Rs.7,14,378/- (a) Sabita Mukherjee Rs.2,97,251/- (b) M/s Pompa Furniture Rs. 70,166/- © Md Safi Rs.1,66,961/- (d) Sk. Rahman Rs. 76,000/- (e) Madan Mohan Enterprise Rs.1,04,000/- Rs.7,14,378/- 4. (i) For that

M/S. WRINKLE MARKETING PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-9(2), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

bogus LTCG/STCL/Trading Loss/Valuation loss on shares without providing the copy of the same to the assessee. 9. For that under the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in considering the Loss on Derivative transaction of Rs.20,028,541/- as unexplained cash credit whereas all the information were duly on records. 10. For that

KAJORA PACHAI & C.S. SHOP,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD - 1(3), DURGAPUR, BURDWAN

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2008-09

251 (1) The use of "Comma" 1. Use a comma to separate and introductory clause or phase from a main clause. 9. Use a comma to separate, words, phrases and clauses in the series. 10. Used a comma to set off absolute and parenthetical elements in the sentence. ITA No.1198/Kol/2011 A.Y.2008-09 Kajora Pachai & C s Shop

ITO, WARD - 40(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. JUGAL KISHORE BHAGAT, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2020-21 Ito, Ward-40(1), Kolkata ………….……………………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Jugal Kishore Bhagat ………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent 3B, Trimurti Apartment, 139, Dakshindari Road, Sreebhumi, Kol-700048.. [Pan: Aikpb8527H] Appearances By: Shri Mohit Mrinal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 08, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 19, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10.06.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2020–21. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 362 Days & The Revenue Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Going Over The Said Petition, We Find Sufficient Reasons Behind The Delay & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2020–21. 2. The appeal has been filed by the revenue with a delay of 362 days and the revenue has filed a petition for condonation of the delay. After going over the said petition, we find sufficient reasons behind the delay

JOGMAYA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 37(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed both on account of delay as well as on merits

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

bogus I.T.A. No.: 1063/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jogmaya Construction Company. purchases of ₹57,24,383/- and estimation of 5% of commission of accommodation entries of ₹ 2,86,219/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who issued a notice to the assessee requiring to file a reply. The assessee

M/S. BHAGAWATI OXYGEN LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.1473&1474/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16) Bhagawati Oxygen Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata

purchase on the advice of Mr. Kishan Bhawasingka and that after the amount passes through in 2 to 3 layers of companies the same was returned back in cash to the original donors after deducting commission. The name of the assessee Bhagawati Oxygen Ltd. I.T.A Nos.1473&1474/Kol/2019 is not mentioned in this statement. He states that the broker Mr. Kishan

M/S. BHAGAWATI OXYGEN LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.1473&1474/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16) Bhagawati Oxygen Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata

purchase on the advice of Mr. Kishan Bhawasingka and that after the amount passes through in 2 to 3 layers of companies the same was returned back in cash to the original donors after deducting commission. The name of the assessee Bhagawati Oxygen Ltd. I.T.A Nos.1473&1474/Kol/2019 is not mentioned in this statement. He states that the broker Mr. Kishan

RAJDA POLYMERS,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-36, KOLKATA

In the result, this assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

purchase on the advice of Mr. Kishan Bhawasingka and that after the amount passes through in 2 to 3 layers of companies the same was returned back in cash to the original donors after deducting commission. The name of 1. T.A. No. 23461K0V20 18 Raj Karan Dassani Assessment Year: 2013-14 the assessee is not mentioned in this statement

RAJ KARAN DASSANI ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(1) , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 2346/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Raj Karan Dassani......………………..………………………....………………...…………………….….Appellant [Pan : Adnpd 8826 B] Ito, Ward - 36(1), Kolkata………............................................................…....….…………..…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate, Appearing On Behalf Of The Appellant Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appearing On Behalf Of The Respondent.

purchase on the advice of Mr. Kishan Bhawasingka and that after the amount passes through in 2 to 3 layers of companies the same was returned back in cash to the original donors after deducting commission. The name of 8 I.T.A. No. 2346/Kol/2018 Raj Karan Dassani Assessment Year: 2013-14 the assessee is not mentioned in this statement. He states