DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND CEMENT & ROOFINGS PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

41. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. A.Y. 2018-19 D. 1702/KOL/2025 (Revenue’s appeal) 42. The issue raised in ground nos.1, 2 & 3 of this appeal is against the order of ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of ₹37,24,182/- as made by the AO on account of bogus purchases. Balmukund Lease Fin Private

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND CEMENT & ROOFINGS PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

41. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. A.Y. 2018-19 D. 1702/KOL/2025 (Revenue’s appeal) 42. The issue raised in ground nos.1, 2 & 3 of this appeal is against the order of ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of ₹37,24,182/- as made by the AO on account of bogus purchases. Balmukund Lease Fin Private

GOPAL & SONS HUF,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 32(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

41. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. A.Y. 2018-19 D. 1702/KOL/2025 (Revenue’s appeal) 42. The issue raised in ground nos.1, 2 & 3 of this appeal is against the order of ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of ₹37,24,182/- as made by the AO on account of bogus purchases. Balmukund Lease Fin Private

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

bogus. Thus the addition made on the basis of said\nreport by the AO is wrong and can not be sustained. Therefore the order\nof Id CIT(A) directing the AO to apply a GP rate of 8.01% on the so called\nbogus purchases is set aside and we direct the Assessing Officer to\ndelete the addition. The grounds

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

bogus. Thus the addition made on the basis of said\nreport by the AO is wrong and can not be sustained. Therefore the order\nof Id CIT(A) directing the AO to apply a GP rate of 8.01% on the so called\nbogus purchases is set aside and we direct the Assessing Officer to\ndelete the addition. The grounds

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

bogus. Thus the addition made on the basis of said\nreport by the AO is wrong and can not be sustained. Therefore the order\nof Id CIT(A) directing the AO to apply a GP rate of 8.01% on the so called\nbogus purchases is set aside and we direct the Assessing Officer to\ndelete the addition. The grounds

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

bogus. Thus the addition made on the basis of said\nreport by the AO is wrong and can not be sustained. Therefore the order\nof Id CIT(A) directing the AO to apply a GP rate of 8.01% on the so called\nbogus purchases is set aside and we direct the Assessing Officer to\ndelete the addition. The grounds

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

bogus. Thus the addition made on the basis of said\nreport by the AO is wrong and can not be sustained. Therefore the order\nof Id CIT(A) directing the AO to apply a GP rate of 8.01% on the so called\nbogus purchases is set aside and we direct the Assessing Officer to\ndelete the addition. The grounds

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

bogus. Thus the addition made on the basis of said\nreport by the AO is wrong and can not be sustained. Therefore the order\nof Id CIT(A) directing the AO to apply a GP rate of 8.01% on the so called\nbogus purchases is set aside and we direct the Assessing Officer to\ndelete the addition. The grounds

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

bogus. Thus the addition made on the basis of said\nreport by the AO is wrong and can not be sustained. Therefore the order\nof Id CIT(A) directing the AO to apply a GP rate of 8.01% on the so called\nbogus purchases is set aside and we direct the Assessing Officer to\ndelete the addition. The grounds

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

bogus. Thus the addition made on the basis of said\nreport by the AO is wrong and can not be sustained. Therefore the order\nof Id CIT(A) directing the AO to apply a GP rate of 8.01% on the so called\nbogus purchases is set aside and we direct the Assessing Officer to\ndelete the addition. The grounds

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

bogus. Thus the addition made on the basis of said\nreport by the AO is wrong and can not be sustained. Therefore the order\nof Id CIT(A) directing the AO to apply a GP rate of 8.01% on the so called\nbogus purchases is set aside and we direct the Assessing Officer to\ndelete the addition. The grounds

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

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and\nappeals of the revenue are dismissed

bogus. Thus the addition made on the basis of said\nreport by the AO is wrong and can not be sustained. Therefore the order\nof Id CIT(A) directing the AO to apply a GP rate of 8.01% on the so called\nbogus purchases is set aside and we direct the Assessing Officer to\ndelete the addition. The grounds

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

bogus. Thus the addition made on the basis of said\nreport by the AO is wrong and can not be sustained. Therefore the order\nof Id CIT(A) directing the AO to apply a GP rate of 8.01% on the so called\nbogus purchases is set aside and we direct the Assessing Officer to\ndelete the addition. The grounds

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

bogus. Thus the addition made on the basis of said\nreport by the AO is wrong and can not be sustained. Therefore the order\nof Id CIT(A) directing the AO to apply a GP rate of 8.01% on the so called\nbogus purchases is set aside and we direct the Assessing Officer to\ndelete the addition. The grounds

DCIT, CC-2(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BALAJI AGRO PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Central Circle-2(4), M/S Balaji Agro Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, A5-6 Sarkarpool Maheshtala, 4Th Floor, 110 Shantipally, E.M. New Budge Budge Trunk Rd. Vs. Bypass, Kolkata-700107 Gopalpur 24 Paraganas South West Bengal Kolkata-700143, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcb9078M Assessee By : Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2025

Section 68 of the Act cannot be applied where the repayment of loan has been made even in the subsequent year. The case of the assessee also finds support from the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Ambe Tradecorp (P.) Ltd. (2022) 145 taxmann.com 27 (Gujarat), in which the Hon'ble High Court

A R UDYOG,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD 46(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

bogus purchases to be added.\nTherefore, before all three authorities, the assessee has not proved the\ngenuineness of the purchases, which inter alia include the source of making\nthe payment for such purchases. In the light of these factual findings by\nthree authorities, today before the High Court, the assessee's submissions\nthat they have discharged the onus cast upon

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LTD., KOLKATA

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

Section 68 of the Act, three ingredients were necessary.\nFirstly, identity of the parties to the transaction of loan, second is the\ncreditworthiness of such parties and thirdly the genuineness of the transaction.\nIt was submitted in vain that neither of the ingredients were satisfied.\n5. As discussed above, since the requisite material was furnished by assessee\nshowing the identity