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

section 68 of the Act is not applicable to a case where unsecured loan has been repaid. Therefore, our decision in ground no.1 in ITA No. 1699Kol/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 would mutatis mutandis apply to these ground nos. 6 to 8 of this appeal as well. The ground nos. 6 to 8 of the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND SPONGE AND IRON PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

section 68 of the Act is not applicable to a case where unsecured loan has been repaid. Therefore, our decision in ground no.1 in ITA No. 1699Kol/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 would mutatis mutandis apply to these ground nos. 6 to 8 of this appeal as well. The ground nos. 6 to 8 of the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

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

section 68 of the Act is not applicable to a case where unsecured loan has been repaid. Therefore, our decision in ground no.1 in ITA No. 1699Kol/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 would mutatis mutandis apply to these ground nos. 6 to 8 of this appeal as well. The ground nos. 6 to 8 of the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

MEGAPODE VYAPAAR PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ITA No. 98/KOL/2023 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sri Anikesh Banerjee

bogus loss. 4) That the Ld CIT (A) erred in confirming Rs. 48000/-, being 20 % of total salary arbitrarily. 5) That the Ld CIT (A) erred in confirming Rs. 54976/-, being 20 % of total other expenses arbitrarily. 6) That the appellant craves to add or alter any grounds of appeal during the proceedings of appeal.” 4. The brief fact

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

43,483/- from various parties @ 0.5% and added to the income\nof the assessee thereby making an addition of ₹1,54,718/-.\n023. In the appellate proceedings, the Id. CIT (A) in Para no.4.1\nextracted the details of purchases from four parties aggregating to\n3,09.43,483/- on which the Id. AO disallowed 0.5% of the total\npurchases on estimated

ACIT, CIRCLE-34, KOLKATA vs. VINOD KUMAR LAHOTI, KOKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

bogus purchase from the same parties as alleged in the year under consideration and no adverse view was taken by the AO in respect of purchases made by the assessee from impugned parties. In the instant case, the assessee has also submitted that the purchases are recorded in the books of account, source has been proved and books

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

bogus shareholders, the Revenue can reopen their individual assessment and addition cannot be made in the hands of the recipient company: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the assessment order as the transaction entered into by the assessee was a scheme for laundering black money into white money

DEPUTY COMMISSOENR OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

bogus shareholders, the Revenue can reopen their individual assessment and addition cannot be made in the hands of the recipient company: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the assessment order as the transaction entered into by the assessee was a scheme for laundering black money into white money

RAINBOW VANIJYA PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

43,527/- on account of alleged bogus purchases without doubting the sales recorded the books of accounts and thus, the Id. CIT (A) has exceeded the jurisdiction since, the addition made by the Id. AO was ₹1,33,61,981/- in respect of commission earned out of books of accounts and the enhancement is beyond the subject matter of appeal

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

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

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

Section 68 of the Act, three ingredients were necessary. Firstly, identity of the parties to the transaction of loan, second is the creditworthiness of such parties and thirdly the genuineness of the transaction. It was submitted in vain that neither of the ingredients were satisfied. 5. As discussed above, since the requisite material was furnished by assessee showing the identity

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 4 KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

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

Section 68 of the Act, three ingredients were necessary. Firstly, identity of the parties to the transaction of loan, second is the creditworthiness of such parties and thirdly the genuineness of the transaction. It was submitted in vain that neither of the ingredients were satisfied. 5. As discussed above, since the requisite material was furnished by assessee showing the identity

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

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

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

Section 68 of the Act, three ingredients were necessary. Firstly, identity of the parties to the transaction of loan, second is the creditworthiness of such parties and thirdly the genuineness of the transaction. It was submitted in vain that neither of the ingredients were satisfied. 5. As discussed above, since the requisite material was furnished by assessee showing the identity

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

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

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

Section 68 of the Act, three ingredients were necessary. Firstly, identity of the parties to the transaction of loan, second is the creditworthiness of such parties and thirdly the genuineness of the transaction. It was submitted in vain that neither of the ingredients were satisfied. 5. As discussed above, since the requisite material was furnished by assessee showing the identity

R S ISPAT LIMITED,SALT LAKE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 12(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

bogus purchases of Rs.3,46,77,884/- from five parties, as the vehicle registration numbers of the lorries were not properly mentioned in their challans. During the course of remand proceedings, it is noticed that the order; dated 23.06.2014, passed by the Sr. Jt. CST, were duly revised vide orders; dated 27.07.2015 & 03.08.2015, by the Addl. Commissioner

S.K. DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD., KOLKATA,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 9(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10

section 263 of the Act was passed on 22.03.2015, whereby the addition of ₹38,20,000/- was made on account of bogus purchases and the total income was assessed at ₹1,19,43

M/S. GUNNY DEALERS LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TECH-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1373/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2012-13 M/S Gunny Dealers Ltd…………………....................…...……………....Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Aabcg0019R] Vs. Ito, Tech-1, Kolkata………….……………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 27, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.11.2023 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’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Haye Considered That The Order U/S 143(3) Was Passed By An Authority Who Lacks Jurisdiction Over The Appellant & As Such, The Said Order Is Bad In Law & Is Liable To Be Quashed. 2. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Disallowance Of

bogus purchases made from Smt. Anima Roy. 5. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the disallowance of Rs.44,459/- made by the A.O. on account of Employees' contribution to Provident Fund by wrongly invoking the provisions of sec.36(1)(va) r.w.s

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RANGE-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 14A of the Act. We observe that though the above decision has been rendered in the context of disallowance of interest attributable to funds invested towards tax free income but the same analogy is applicable for considering the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii). Therefore we are inclined to hold that 17 I.T.A. Nos.1068 & 1166/Kol/2017

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RANGE-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 14A of the Act. We observe that though the above decision has been rendered in the context of disallowance of interest attributable to funds invested towards tax free income but the same analogy is applicable for considering the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii). Therefore we are inclined to hold that 17 I.T.A. Nos.1068 & 1166/Kol/2017