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 Before the Commissioner (Appeals) it as submitted by the assessee that raw hides were purchased from the four parties under consideration on the understanding that after the hides were processed and the finished leather was produced the same would Balmukund Lease Fin Private Limited; A.Y. 15-16 to 18-19, 23-24 Balmukund Cement & Roofings

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 Before the Commissioner (Appeals) it as submitted by the assessee that raw hides were purchased from the four parties under consideration on the understanding that after the hides were processed and the finished leather was produced the same would Balmukund Lease Fin Private Limited; A.Y. 15-16 to 18-19, 23-24 Balmukund Cement & Roofings

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 Before the Commissioner (Appeals) it as submitted by the assessee that raw hides were purchased from the four parties under consideration on the understanding that after the hides were processed and the finished leather was produced the same would Balmukund Lease Fin Private Limited; A.Y. 15-16 to 18-19, 23-24 Balmukund Cement & Roofings

DCIT, CIR-26(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CHIEN HSING TANNERY, KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T. A No. 1629/Kol/2017 A.Y 2012-13 A.C.I.T, Cir-26(1), Kolkata V/S. M/S. Chien Hsing Tannery Pan: Aaefc7201R (Appellant) (Respondent)

50,21,568/­ as bogus purchase. 4. The A.O has found that the appellant has made purchase from the following four parties: 1. M/s A.H. Traders Rs.59,61,280/­ 2. M/s Shree Enterprises Rs.38, 78,160/­ 3. M/s R. K. Trading Rs.l,09,37,264/­ 4. M/s J.K. Traders Rs.42,44,864/­ The A.O has observed that these concerns

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

section 68 of the Act\nBefore the Commissioner (Appeals) it as submitted by the assessee that raw hides\nwere purchased from the four parties under consideration on the understanding that\nafter the hides were processed and the finished leather was produced the same would\nPage 17\nbe resold to same parties in substance therefore the transaction was more

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND LEASE FIN PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 68 of the Act\nBefore the Commissioner (Appeals) it as submitted by the assessee that raw hides\nwere purchased from the four parties under consideration on the understanding that\nafter the hides were processed and the finished leather was produced the same would\nPage 17\nBalmukund Lease Fin Private Limited; A.Y. 15-16 to 18-19, 23-24\nBalmukund

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 68 of the Act\nBefore the Commissioner (Appeals) it as submitted by the assessee that raw hides\nwere purchased from the four parties under consideration on the understanding that\nafter the hides were processed and the finished leather was produced the same would\nPage | 17\nBalmukund Lease Fin Private Limited; A.Y. 15-16 to 18-19, 23-24\nBalmukund

BALMUKUND SPONGE & IRON PVT. LTD.,,PATNA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3),, KOLKATA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 68 of the Act\nBefore the Commissioner (Appeals) it as submitted by the assessee that raw hides\nwere purchased from the four parties under consideration on the understanding that\nafter the hides were processed and the finished leather was produced the same would\nPage 17\nBalmukund Lease Fin Private Limited; A.Y. 15-16 to 18-19, 23-24\nBalmukund

BALMUKUND SPONGE & IRON PVT. LTD.,,PATNA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3),, KOLKATA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 68 of the Act\nBefore the Commissioner (Appeals) it as submitted by the assessee that raw hides\nwere purchased from the four parties under consideration on the understanding that\nafter the hides were processed and the finished leather was produced the same would\nPage 17\nBalmukund Lease Fin Private Limited; A.Y. 15-16 to 18-19, 23-24\nBalmukund

BALMUKUND SPONGE & IRON PVT. LTD.,,PATNA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3),, KOLKATA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 68 of the Act\nBefore the Commissioner (Appeals) it as submitted by the assessee that raw hides\nwere purchased from the four parties under consideration on the understanding that\nafter the hides were processed and the finished leather was produced the same would\nPage 17\nBalmukund Lease Fin Private Limited; A.Y. 15-16 to 18-19, 23-24\nBalmukund

BALMUKUND CEMENT & ROOFINGS PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3),, KOLKATA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 68 of the Act\nBefore the Commissioner (Appeals) it as submitted by the assessee that raw hides\nwere purchased from the four parties under consideration on the understanding that\nafter the hides were processed and the finished leather was produced the same would\nPage 17\nBalmukund Lease Fin Private Limited; A.Y. 15-16 to 18-19, 23-24\nBalmukund

BALMUKUND SPONGE & IRON PVT. LTD.,,PATNA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3),, KOLKATA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 68 of the Act\nBefore the Commissioner (Appeals) it as submitted by the assessee that raw hides\nwere purchased from the four parties under consideration on the understanding that\nafter the hides were processed and the finished leather was produced the same would\nPage 17\nBalmukund Lease Fin Private Limited; A.Y. 15-16 to 18-19, 23-24\nBalmukund

MANOJ BEGANI,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-44, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

50,000/- being bogus purchase of diamonds from M/s. Arihant Exports (hereinafter referred to as “M/s. Arihant”). Since the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is identically worded and the basis for addition in all the assessment years are the same except variance in figures, we take the lead case that of AY 2008-09 and the decision

MANOJ BEGANI,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-44, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

50,000/- being bogus purchase of diamonds from M/s. Arihant Exports (hereinafter referred to as “M/s. Arihant”). Since the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is identically worded and the basis for addition in all the assessment years are the same except variance in figures, we take the lead case that of AY 2008-09 and the decision

MANOJ BEGANI,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-44, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

50,000/- being bogus purchase of diamonds from M/s. Arihant Exports (hereinafter referred to as “M/s. Arihant”). Since the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is identically worded and the basis for addition in all the assessment years are the same except variance in figures, we take the lead case that of AY 2008-09 and the decision

MANOJ BEGANI,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-44, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

50,000/- being bogus purchase of diamonds from M/s. Arihant Exports (hereinafter referred to as “M/s. Arihant”). Since the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is identically worded and the basis for addition in all the assessment years are the same except variance in figures, we take the lead case that of AY 2008-09 and the decision

MANOJ BEGANI,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-44, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

50,000/- being bogus purchase of diamonds from M/s. Arihant Exports (hereinafter referred to as “M/s. Arihant”). Since the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is identically worded and the basis for addition in all the assessment years are the same except variance in figures, we take the lead case that of AY 2008-09 and the decision

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTHAN ENGINEERING & INDUSTRIES LTD., , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.952/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

bogus since it is common knowledge that sales of goods cannot taken place without purchase of goods in the first place. So, therefore, in the light of the evidences adduced to prove the genuineness of the transactions and when the fact remains that the sales has been accepted by the Assessing Officer in totality, the action of the Assessing Officer