ITO, WARD - 4(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. ABC ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.153 & 154/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Ito, Ward-4(3), Kolkata Vs. Abc Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Room No.44, 10Th Floor, Fortuna Tower, 23A, Netaji Subhas Road, (Opp. Coal Bhawan), Kol-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacca7561P (Revenue/Department) .. (Assessee ) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.155 & 156/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Abc Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward-4(3), Kolkata Room No.44, 10Th Floor, Fortuna Tower, 23A, Netaji Subhas Road, (Opp. Coal Bhawan), Kol-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacca7561P (Assessee) .. (Revenue/Department) Revenue/Department By : Shri A. K. Nayak, Cit Assessee By : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 03/09/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: The Revenue & Assessee Have Filed Their Instant Cross-Appeals For Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2014-15 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - 2, Kolkata’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 01.12.2017 Passed In Case No.10147/Cit(A)-2/2016-17 & No.10919/Cit(A)-2/2016-17 Restricting The Assessing Officer’S Action Disallowing The Entire Purchases Of Rs.4,90,30,444/-

264 ITR 254 (Gau.). For the proposition that where the account books of the assessee are not rejected the addition cannot be made and the payments having been made through account payee cheques which has not been controverted by the assessing officer, cannot be disallowed Further reliance is placed on: (i) Sagar Boss Vs. ITO 56 ITD 561- holding that

ABC ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 4(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.153 & 154/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Ito, Ward-4(3), Kolkata Vs. Abc Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Room No.44, 10Th Floor, Fortuna Tower, 23A, Netaji Subhas Road, (Opp. Coal Bhawan), Kol-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacca7561P (Revenue/Department) .. (Assessee ) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.155 & 156/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Abc Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward-4(3), Kolkata Room No.44, 10Th Floor, Fortuna Tower, 23A, Netaji Subhas Road, (Opp. Coal Bhawan), Kol-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacca7561P (Assessee) .. (Revenue/Department) Revenue/Department By : Shri A. K. Nayak, Cit Assessee By : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 03/09/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: The Revenue & Assessee Have Filed Their Instant Cross-Appeals For Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2014-15 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - 2, Kolkata’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 01.12.2017 Passed In Case No.10147/Cit(A)-2/2016-17 & No.10919/Cit(A)-2/2016-17 Restricting The Assessing Officer’S Action Disallowing The Entire Purchases Of Rs.4,90,30,444/-

264 ITR 254 (Gau.). For the proposition that where the account books of the assessee are not rejected the addition cannot be made and the payments having been made through account payee cheques which has not been controverted by the assessing officer, cannot be disallowed Further reliance is placed on: (i) Sagar Boss Vs. ITO 56 ITD 561- holding that

ABC ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 4(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.153 & 154/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Ito, Ward-4(3), Kolkata Vs. Abc Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Room No.44, 10Th Floor, Fortuna Tower, 23A, Netaji Subhas Road, (Opp. Coal Bhawan), Kol-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacca7561P (Revenue/Department) .. (Assessee ) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.155 & 156/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Abc Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward-4(3), Kolkata Room No.44, 10Th Floor, Fortuna Tower, 23A, Netaji Subhas Road, (Opp. Coal Bhawan), Kol-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacca7561P (Assessee) .. (Revenue/Department) Revenue/Department By : Shri A. K. Nayak, Cit Assessee By : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 03/09/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: The Revenue & Assessee Have Filed Their Instant Cross-Appeals For Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2014-15 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - 2, Kolkata’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 01.12.2017 Passed In Case No.10147/Cit(A)-2/2016-17 & No.10919/Cit(A)-2/2016-17 Restricting The Assessing Officer’S Action Disallowing The Entire Purchases Of Rs.4,90,30,444/-

264 ITR 254 (Gau.). For the proposition that where the account books of the assessee are not rejected the addition cannot be made and the payments having been made through account payee cheques which has not been controverted by the assessing officer, cannot be disallowed Further reliance is placed on: (i) Sagar Boss Vs. ITO 56 ITD 561- holding that

DCIT, CIRCLE - 48, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SANJAY JAISWAL, HOWRAH

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is allowed , appeals of the assessee and revenue are dismissed as infructuous

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

bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 42,81,239/-. The assessee contested the fresh assessment before the Learned CITA both on limitation as well as on merits. ITA Nos.1649/K/2010, CO No. 162/K/2010 2 & ITA No. 1676/K/2010 Sanjay Jaiswal-A-AM The preliminary objection raised by the assessee on limitation before the Learned CIT(A) was subjected to remand proceedings

I.T.O WD - 1(2),HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY vs. SRI KALIN DUTTA, HOOGHLY

In the result, appeal by Revenue stands dismissed

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

section 133(6) of the Act. However, notices to some of the parties were returned back with the remarks hereunder: Sl Name Amount involved Gist of the remarks No. of postman 1 M/s Ma Tara Enterprise Rs.9,87,036/- (purchase) Insufficient address 3 M/s Kali Enterprise Rs.2,53,949/- (purchase) Not known 4 Sri Chandi Samanta Rs.67,048/- (purchase

SMT. SUSHILA DEVI KAJARIA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 36, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

bogus Short Term Capital loss made by the assessee during the previous year. It is apparent that, in the grab of alleged STCG, the assessee was trying to set off actual incomes against this manufactured loss. 2. The Ld. AO has very carefully analyzed the information received from the Investigation Wing, and has recorded the noteworthy features of the Company

NAVIN KUMAR KAJARIA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 35, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

bogus Short Term Capital loss made by the assessee during the previous year. It is apparent that, in the grab of alleged STCG, the assessee was trying to set off actual incomes against this manufactured loss. 2. The Ld. AO has very carefully analyzed the information received from the Investigation Wing, and has recorded the noteworthy features of the Company

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

ACIT, CIRCLE - 10(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. VESUVIUS INDIA LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1333/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2008-09)

section 37(1) of the Act. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld CIT(A), his order on this issue is hereby accepted and grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 37. Ground No. 3 raised by the Revenue in I.T.A. No. 1333/ Kol/2017, reads as follows: 3. Whether

ACIT, CIRCLE - 10(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. VESUVIUS INDIA LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1333/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2008-09)

section 37(1) of the Act. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld CIT(A), his order on this issue is hereby accepted and grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 37. Ground No. 3 raised by the Revenue in I.T.A. No. 1333/ Kol/2017, reads as follows: 3. Whether

ACIT, CIRCLE - 10(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. VESUVIUS INDIA LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1333/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2008-09)

section 37(1) of the Act. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld CIT(A), his order on this issue is hereby accepted and grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 37. Ground No. 3 raised by the Revenue in I.T.A. No. 1333/ Kol/2017, reads as follows: 3. Whether

VESUVIUS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1333/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2008-09)

section 37(1) of the Act. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld CIT(A), his order on this issue is hereby accepted and grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 37. Ground No. 3 raised by the Revenue in I.T.A. No. 1333/ Kol/2017, reads as follows: 3. Whether

MARUTI TRADERS & INVESTORS,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 31, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 846/Kol/2017 I.T.A. No. 637/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2013-14

section 14A of the Act and depending upon the facts of each case, the expenditure incurred in acquiring those shares and maintaining those shares would have to be apportioned between taxable and exempt income. The ld AR placed reliance on the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this tribunal in the case of DCIT vs S.G. Investments & Industries

MARUTI TRADERS & INVESTORS,KOLKATA vs. ACIT CIRCLE 31, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 846/Kol/2017 I.T.A. No. 637/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2013-14

section 14A of the Act and depending upon the facts of each case, the expenditure incurred in acquiring those shares and maintaining those shares would have to be apportioned between taxable and exempt income. The ld AR placed reliance on the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this tribunal in the case of DCIT vs S.G. Investments & Industries

LEMONGRASS DEALTRADE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. -5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

264 on 27.07.2016. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 after the AO received information that the assessee is beneficiary of accommodation entry from M/S Bhagyshree Vincom Pvt Ltd who has applied for 59000 equity shares . The AO finally made addition of Rs. 59,00,000/- vide order dated 27.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3)/147

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. BHAWANI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., HOWRAH

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

bogus Share Capital under Section 68. The assessment was set aside by the PCIT, Hazaribagh vide his order u/s 264 of the Act dated 18-01- 2017, with a direction to the Assessing Officer to reframe the assessment de novo after making enquiry regarding genuineness and source of the share capital. The scrutiny assessment order was framed by the DCIT

NARAYAN SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

purchase of\nshares.\nIt is, therefore, clear that there was no lawful application of the mind\nby the AO on the information received by him nor he has made any\nenquiry to show that whatever stated in the reasons was believable.\nThe AO in the reasons has stated that the information was received\nfrom the Pr. Director of Income

BALHANUMAN COMMODEAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(4), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13

bogus and unexplained cash credit in its books as per the provisions of section 68 of 1.T. Act., but the assessee failed to put forward any explanation till the date of passing of this order. From the aforesaid facts and discussion, it is evident that assessee has no explanation to offer in this regard which reveals that the assessee