IDEAL UNEMPLOYED ENGINEERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,COOCHBIHAR vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2, JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2010-11

bogus purchase and this entry was made in the purchase register to reduce the taxable income. This transactions was entered into with malafide intention of tax evasion. Regarding the non- disclosure of accrued interest in the return of income, the AO is directed to verify whether the entire interest for one year has been offered

SUVAPRASANNA BHATTACHARYA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 55, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07 Suvaprasanna Bhatacharya V/S. Acit, Circle-55, Bh-167, Salt Lake, Sector- 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Ii, Kolkata-700 016 Kidwai Road, [Pan No.Aedpb 2611 R] Kolkata – 700 016 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

purchase and sale of investments as stated to have not been disclosed while filing the return of income. The bank balance on a particular date was invested as apparent from the bank statement. Hence Short term capital gain should not be treated as undisclosed under the head undisclosed investments. 3.3 The above submissions did not find favour with

M/S HALLMARK CONSTRUCTION,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD.3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am]

bogus purchase totaling Rs.2,28,03,156/-. The assessee was served notice u/s. 274 read with section 271 of the Act on 10.12.2010. In response

ACIT, CIR-33, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI BISWAJIT GUHA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narsimha Chary

Section 194C(1) cannot be made applicable for the assessment year 2006-07. On identical fact the learned Tribunal has held so in the case of Ajay Rawla vs. DCIT, Circle-28, Kolkata [ITA No.353/Kol/2010 dated 22.6.2011]. It has not been submitted that the aforesaid judgment has been upset by this Court. In fact, on narration of undisputed fact

SANJAY TRANSPORT AGENCY,RANIGANJ vs. ACIT, CIR. 3(1), ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the cross- appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A No.567/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sanjay Transport Agency............................................................................….. Appellant 41, N.S.B. Road, Raniganj – 713347. [Pan: Aavfs6659N] Vs. Acit, Circle-3(1), Asansol...............................................................…… …. Respondent I.T.A No.633/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ito, Ward-3(1), Asansol............................................................................….. Appellant Vs. Sanjay Transport Agency...............................................................…… …. Respondent 41, N.S.B. Road, Raniganj – 713347. [Pan: Aavfs6659N] Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Adv. & Shri Aryan Kochar, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vivek Verma, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 13, 2023 आदेश / Order मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद"य "वारा / Per Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Filed By The Assessee & Cross Appeal Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Asansol Both Dated 22.09.2020 Are Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In Ita No.567/Kol/2020 Has Taken The Following 2. Grounds Of Appeal:

bogus. Thus, appeal to the extent of Rs.21,80,472/- is disallowed. Hence, appeal is partly allowed.” The above finding of the ld. CIT(A) that the expenditure have 11. been incurred towards purchase of spare parts and sub-contract expenses remained unrebutted by the ld. Departmental Representative. The disallowance made by the ld. CIT(A) is merely

ITO, WARD-3(1), ASANSOL vs. SANJAY TRANSPORT AGENCY, RANIGUNG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the cross- appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A No.567/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sanjay Transport Agency............................................................................….. Appellant 41, N.S.B. Road, Raniganj – 713347. [Pan: Aavfs6659N] Vs. Acit, Circle-3(1), Asansol...............................................................…… …. Respondent I.T.A No.633/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ito, Ward-3(1), Asansol............................................................................….. Appellant Vs. Sanjay Transport Agency...............................................................…… …. Respondent 41, N.S.B. Road, Raniganj – 713347. [Pan: Aavfs6659N] Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Adv. & Shri Aryan Kochar, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vivek Verma, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 13, 2023 आदेश / Order मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद"य "वारा / Per Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Filed By The Assessee & Cross Appeal Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Asansol Both Dated 22.09.2020 Are Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In Ita No.567/Kol/2020 Has Taken The Following 2. Grounds Of Appeal:

bogus. Thus, appeal to the extent of Rs.21,80,472/- is disallowed. Hence, appeal is partly allowed.” The above finding of the ld. CIT(A) that the expenditure have 11. been incurred towards purchase of spare parts and sub-contract expenses remained unrebutted by the ld. Departmental Representative. The disallowance made by the ld. CIT(A) is merely

ESCEE TRADERS PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SATKRITI PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 5(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.1752/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Escee Traders Pvt. Ltd (Formerly Known As Satkriti Properties Pvt. Ltd.) ….....Appellant 12Th Floor, Unit 12B, Unimark Asian, 52/1, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan: Aancs7043M] Vs. Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata……….……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri R. C. Jhawer, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Rama Choudhary, Jcit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 28, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13 Against The Order Dated 21.06.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Dated 26.03.2022. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.19,81,896/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act Based On Information Received Regarding Bogus Ltcg On Sale Of Shares Of Banas Finance Ltd. It Was Alleged That The Assessee Purchased 55,000 Shares For Rs.30,11,800/- & Sold Them For Rs.10,05,950/- Booking A Loss Of Rs.20,05,850/-. During The Assessment Proceedings, It Was Concluded

purchased 55,000 shares for Rs.30,11,800/- and sold them for Rs.10,05,950/- booking a loss of Rs.20,05,850/-. During the assessment proceedings, it was concluded I.T.A. No.1752/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Escee Traders Pvt. Ltd that the loss claimed was bogus and transaction was non-genuine. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer disallowed loss of Rs.20

V2 RETAIL LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

bogus purchases for Rs.25,65,05,225/- F.Y. 2007-08 (pertaining to A.Y.2008-09) from various persons namely Shri Nirbhay Shankar Gupta, Shri Shyam Shankar Gupta, Shri Rajeev Kumar Gupta and Shri Madan Gupta of Delhi. Therefore, I have reason to believe that income to the extent of Rs.25,65,05,225/ - has escaped assessment.” 5. The issue is whether

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. V2 RETAIL LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

bogus purchases for Rs.25,65,05,225/- F.Y. 2007-08 (pertaining to A.Y.2008-09) from various persons namely Shri Nirbhay Shankar Gupta, Shri Shyam Shankar Gupta, Shri Rajeev Kumar Gupta and Shri Madan Gupta of Delhi. Therefore, I have reason to believe that income to the extent of Rs.25,65,05,225/ - has escaped assessment.” 5. The issue is whether

SRI SURYA PRAKASH BAGLA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR-VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 398/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Surya Prakash Bagla -Vs- Dcit, Central Circle-Vii, Kolkata [Pan: Aebpb 4558 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

purchase of shares. 3.2.2. M/s Saltee InfoTech filed Title Suit No. 216 of 2007 in the court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, IInd Court, at Barasat seeking a decree declaring the memorandum dated 04.08.2005 as terminated with mutual consent, letters dated 01.11.2007 and 19.11.2007 as void, delivery up and cancellation of such letters and a decree for perpetual injunction

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

section(ii) vide S.O. 798 dated 14th march 2008 with effect from 1st April ,2007 and shall be deemed that the said notification has not been issued for any tax benefits under the Income Tax Act, 1961 or any other law of the time being in force." On careful perusal of the documents placed in the file

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

section(ii) vide S.O. 798 dated 14th march 2008 with effect from 1st April ,2007 and shall be deemed that the said notification has not been issued for any tax benefits under the Income Tax Act, 1961 or any other law of the time being in force." On careful perusal of the documents placed in the file

ITO, WD-33(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI HARA PRASAD BENERJEE, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 838/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Income Tax Officer, Ward 33(2), Kolkata…..…………………………………………….………...Appellant 10B, Middleton Row 3Rd Floor Kolkata – 700 071 Shri Hara Prasad Banerjee………………………………………..…………………………..………Respondent 87, Lenin Sarani 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 13 [Pan : Agupb 5726 C] Appearances By: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri I. Banerjee, Fca, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 28, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 15Th , 2017 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

274/-, and the turnover disclosed by the assessee of Rs.67,47,677/-. The Assessing Officer added the difference of Rs.2,00,597/-. The ld. CIT(A) held that the entire turnover cannot be treated as income and only 8 per cent of the same was considered as income. 2.1.1. We find no infirmity in the same. Thus, Ground

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

ALOSHA MARKETING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 313/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Alosha Marketing Pvt. Ltd.,……………..………Appellant 62A, Hazra Road, Kolkata-700019 [Pan:Aacca1930G] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,.…Respondent Circle-4(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri N.S. Saini, A.R. & Priyanka Salarpuria, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 08, 2024 O R D E R

274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, Income and tax computation sheet and a copy of the assessment order to the assessee”. 7 Alosha Marketing Pvt. Ltd. 4. Dissatisfied with the reopening as well as addition on quantum, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The findings

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. DILIP KUMAR MODI, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

purchases and sales are correctly recorded and the disclosure was made just to cover the papers and documents which he may not be able to explain. The assessee bifurcated his own disclosure of Rs.3.50 lakhs in respect to two parts, i.e. Rs.70,00,000 for the assessment year 2008-09 and Rs.2.80 lakhs for the assessment year

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. KAMALESH AGARWAL, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

purchases and sales are correctly recorded and the disclosure was made just to cover the papers and documents which he may not be able to explain. The assessee bifurcated his own disclosure of Rs.3.50 lakhs in respect to two parts, i.e. Rs.70,00,000 for the assessment year 2008-09 and Rs.2.80 lakhs for the assessment year