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

2. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred both in law and on facts by setting aside the assessment to the Learned Assessing Officer for fresh assessment under the powers of Section 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

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

2. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred both in law and on facts by setting aside the assessment to the Learned Assessing Officer for fresh assessment under the powers of Section 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

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 AGARWAL, KOLKATA

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

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM\nAND\nSHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM\nIT(SS)A No.86 to 89/KOL/2025, 2007/KOL/2025\n(Assessment Year: 2017-18 to 2020-21, 2021-22)\nAmar Kumar Agarwal\nC/o M/s Salarpuria Jajodia&\nCO.7, CR Avenue, 3rd Floor,\nKolkata-700072, West Bengal\n(Appellant)\nDCIT, CC 4(3)\nAaykarBhawanPoorva,\nVs.110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass,\nKolkata-700107, West Bengal\n(Respondent)\nPAN No. ADDPA3301L\nITA Nos.1496,1497,1498, 1499/KOL/2025, & 1440/KOL/2025\n(Α.Υ.: 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21,

bogus purchases.\"\n8. 2. 6. Further, reliance is also placed in the case of 'M/S. Alokik Steels Pvt. Ltd Village\nvs Principal Commissioner Of Income on 3 March, 2021, ITA No. 861/JP/2019', the\nHon'ble ITAT, Jaipur had held as under:-\n\"Further, there is no dispute regarding the quantum of unaccounted turnover

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

2 3. For that on the a facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the additions made by the AO by wrongly invoking the provisions of 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

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

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

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

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

BLB CABLES & CONDUCTORS(P)LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -5,, KOLKATA

In the result, ground No.2 is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year:2008-09

purchase and sales registers were also submitted in the form of the paper book which is placed at pages 76 to 87. The Board resolution passed by the company for the transactions in commodity was placed at page 88 of the paper book. On the other hand the ld. DR relied in the order of the lower authorities. 4.1 From

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

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

Purchase of fixed assets -NIL. According to AO the Assessee filed the detail party wise break up of category and did not file any details regarding category of (iv) and the Assessee filed her ITA No. 2239/Kol/14 Smt. Sucharita Kar 2 explanation through her reply dt:01-03-2013 wherein the Assessee initially reported sundry credits upto Rs.37

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. 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

2,00,28,541/- being loss from derivatives merely relying in the report of DIT, Kolkata in respect of 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