DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALAJEE MINI STEELS & REROLLING PRIVATE LIMITED , PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip 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 be resold to same parties in substance therefore the transaction was more in the nature

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

546 (Bombay), "wherein, no disallowance of the bogus purchases can be made on the basis of the information received from sales tax department that assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entries without disputing the corresponding sales transactions. Further, the assessee relied upon the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench, in the case of DCIT vs Sharp Mint Ltd, reported

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

546 (Bombay), "wherein, no disallowance of the bogus purchases can be made on the basis of the information received from sales tax department that assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entries without disputing the corresponding sales transactions. Further, the assessee relied upon the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench, in the case of DCIT vs Sharp Mint Ltd, reported

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

546 (Bombay), "wherein, no disallowance of the bogus purchases can be made on the basis of the information received from sales tax department that assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entries without disputing the corresponding sales transactions. Further, the assessee relied upon the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench, in the case of DCIT vs Sharp Mint Ltd, reported

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

546 (Bombay), "wherein, no disallowance of the bogus purchases can be made on the basis of the information received from sales tax department that assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entries without disputing the corresponding sales transactions. Further, the assessee relied upon the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench, in the case of DCIT vs Sharp Mint Ltd, reported

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

546 (Bombay), "wherein, no disallowance of the bogus purchases can be made on the basis of the information received from sales tax department that assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entries without disputing the corresponding sales transactions. Further, the assessee relied upon the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench, in the case of DCIT vs Sharp Mint Ltd, reported

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALAJEE MINI STEELS & REROLLING PRIVATE LIMITED , PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am\Nand\Nshripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm\Nita Nos.1688 To 1691/Kol/2025\N(Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2018-19)\Nita No. 1725/Kol/2025\N(Assessment Year: 2016-17)\Ndcit, Central Circle 4(3)\Nbalajee Mini Steels & Rerolling\Naaykar Bhawan Poorva, 110,\Nprivate Limited\Nshantipally, Kolkata-700107,\N603, Shantikunj Apartment,\Nkolkata\Nphulwanipatna, G.P.O.800001,\N(Appellant)\Nvs.\Npatna\N(Respondent)\Npan No. Aabcb7265J\Nassessee By : Shri Manish Rastogi, Ar\Nrevenue By : S/Shri Praveen Kishore &\Npradeep Dungdung, Drs\Ndate Of Hearing: 01.12.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 15.12.2025\Norder\Nper Rajesh Kumar, Am:\Nthese Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Orders Of\Nthe Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Kolkata-27 (Hereinafter\Nreferred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)"] Dated 13.04.2025 For The Ays 2015-16\Nto 2018-19.\Nas The Facts & Issues In All The Appeals Of Revenue Are Exactly\Nidentical, Hence, For The Sake Of Brevity, We Take Ita No.\N1688/Kol/2025 For A.Y. 2015-16 & Decide The Issue Accordingly.\Nα.Υ. 2015-16\Npage 2\Nita Nos.1688 To 1691/Kol/2025&1725/Kol/2025\Nbalajee Mini Steels & Rerolling Private Limited; Ays 2015-16 To 2018-19\Nita No. 1688/Kol/2025\N3.\Nthe Only Issue Raised By The Revenue Is Against The Deletion Of\Naddition By The Id. Cit (A) Of ₹1,07,03,817/- As Made By The Id. Ao\Non Account Of Suppression Of Income In Respect Of Bogus Purchases.\N3.

section 68 of the Act\nIn the firat appellate stage the assessee submitted ledger account copy,\nconfirmation of accounts and also furnished their Sales Tax registration number\nThe Commissioner (Appeals) held that these transactions were trading\ntransactions and not financial transactions, as such, cannot be added under\nsection 68 of the Act\nBefore the Commissioner (Appeals) it as submitted

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALAJEE MINI STEELS & REROLLING PRIVATE LIMITED , PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am\Nand\Nshripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm\Nita Nos.1688 To 1691/Kol/2025\N(Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2018-19)\Nita No. 1725/Kol/2025\N(Assessment Year: 2016-17)\Ndcit, Central Circle 4(3)\Nbalajee Mini Steels & Rerolling\Naaykar Bhawan Poorva, 110,\Nprivate Limited\Nshantipally, Kolkata-700107,\N603, Shantikunj Apartment,\Nkolkata\Nphulwanipatna, G.P.O.800001,\Nvs.\N(Appellant)\Npatna\N(Respondent)\Npan No. Aabcb7265J\Nassessee By\N:\Nshri Manish Rastogi, Ar\Nrevenue By\N:\Ns/Shri Praveen Kishore &\Npradeep Dungdung, Drs\Ndate Of Hearing:\N01.12.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N15.12.2025\Norder\Nper Rajesh Kumar, Am:\Nthese Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Kolkata-27 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)"] Dated 13.04.2025 For The Ays 2015-16 To 2018-19.\Nas The Facts & Issues In All The Appeals Of Revenue Are Exactly Identical, Hence, For The Sake Of Brevity, We Take Ita No. 1688/Kol/2025 For A.Y. 2015-16 & Decide The Issue Accordingly.\Nα.Υ. 2015-16\Npage 2\Nita Nos.1688 To 1691/Kol/2025&1725/Kol/2025\Nbalajee Mini Steels & Rerolling Private Limited; Ays 2015-16 To 2018-19\Nita No. 1688/Kol/2025\N3.\Nthe Only Issue Raised By The Revenue Is Against The Deletion Of Addition By The Id. Cit (A) Of ₹1,07,03,817/- As Made By The Id. Ao On Account Of Suppression Of Income In Respect Of Bogus Purchases.\N3.

section 68 of the Act\nIn the firat appellate stage the assessee submitted ledger account copy,\nconfirmation of accounts and also furnished their Sales Tax registration number\nThe Commissioner (Appeals) held that these transactions were trading\ntransactions and not financial transactions, as such, cannot be added under\nsection 68 of the Act\nBefore the Commissioner (Appeals) it as submitted

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. BALAJEE MINI STEELS & REROLLING PRIVATE LIMITED , PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am\Nand\Nshripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm\Nita Nos.1688 To 1691/Kol/2025\N(Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2018-19)\Nita No. 1725/Kol/2025\N(Assessment Year: 2016-17)\Ndcit, Central Circle 4(3)\Nbalajee Mini Steels & Rerolling\Naaykar Bhawan Poorva, 110,\Nprivate Limited\Nshantipally, Kolkata-700107,\N603, Shantikunj Apartment,\Nkolkata\Nvs.\Nphulwanipatna, G.P.O.800001,\N(Appellant)\Npatna\N(Respondent)\Npan No. Aabcb7265J\Nassessee By\Nshri Manish Rastogi, Ar\Nrevenue By\Ns/Shri Praveen Kishore &\Npradeep Dungdung, Drs\Ndate Of Hearing: 01.12.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 15.12.2025\Norder\Nper Rajesh Kumar, Am:\Nthese Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Orders Of\Nthe Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Kolkata-27 (Hereinafter\Nreferred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)"] Dated 13.04.2025 For The Ays 2015-16\Nto 2018-19.\Nas The Facts & Issues In All The Appeals Of Revenue Are Exactly\Nidentical, Hence, For The Sake Of Brevity, We Take Ita No.\N1688/Kol/2025 For A.Y. 2015-16 & Decide The Issue Accordingly.\Nα.Υ. 2015-16\Npage 2\Nita Nos.1688 To 1691/Kol/2025&1725/Kol/2025\Nbalajee Mini Steels & Rerolling Private Limited; Ays 2015-16 To 2018-19\Nita No. 1688/Kol/2025\N3.\Nthe Only Issue Raised By The Revenue Is Against The Deletion Of\Naddition By The Id. Cit (A) Of ₹1,07,03,817/- As Made By The Id. Ao\Non Account Of Suppression Of Income In Respect Of Bogus Purchases.\N3.

section 68 of the Act\nIn the firat appellate stage the assessee submitted ledger account copy,\nconfirmation of accounts and also furnished their Sales Tax registration number\nThe Commissioner (Appeals) held that these transactions were trading\ntransactions and not financial transactions, as such, cannot be added under\nsection 68 of the Act\nBefore the Commissioner (Appeals) it as submitted

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

546 (Bombay), \"wherein, no disallowance of the bogus purchases can be\nmade on the basis of the information received from sales tax department that assessee\nwas beneficiary of accommodation entries without disputing the corresponding sales\ntransactions.\nFurther, the assessee relied upon the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench, in the case of DCIT vs\nSharp Mint Ltd, reported

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

546 (Bombay), \"wherein, no disallowance of the bogus purchases can be\nmade on the basis of the information received from sales tax department that assessee\nwas beneficiary of accommodation entries without disputing the corresponding sales\ntransactions.\nFurther, the assessee relied upon the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench, in the case of DCIT vs\nSharp Mint Ltd, reported

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

546 (Bombay), \"wherein, no disallowance of the bogus purchases can be\nmade on the basis of the information received from sales tax department that assessee\nwas beneficiary of accommodation entries without disputing the corresponding sales\ntransactions.\nFurther, the assessee relied upon the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench, in the case of DCIT vs\nSharp Mint Ltd, reported

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

546 (Bombay), "wherein, no disallowance of the bogus purchases can be\nmade on the basis of the information received from sales tax department that assessee\nwas beneficiary of accommodation entries without disputing the corresponding sales\ntransactions.\nFurther, the assessee relied upon the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench, in the case of DCIT vs\nSharp Mint Ltd, reported

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

546 (Bombay), \"wherein, no disallowance of the bogus purchases can be\nmade on the basis of the information received from sales tax department that assessee\nwas beneficiary of accommodation entries without disputing the corresponding sales\ntransactions.\nFurther, the assessee relied upon the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench, in the case of DCIT vs\nSharp Mint Ltd, reported

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

546 (Bombay), \"wherein, no disallowance of the bogus purchases can be\nmade on the basis of the information received from sales tax department that assessee\nwas beneficiary of accommodation entries without disputing the corresponding sales\ntransactions.\nFurther, the assessee relied upon the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench, in the case of DCIT vs\nSharp Mint Ltd, reported

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

546 (Bombay), \"wherein, no disallowance of the bogus purchases can be\nmade on the basis of the information received from sales tax department that assessee\nwas beneficiary of accommodation entries without disputing the corresponding sales\ntransactions.\nFurther, the assessee relied upon the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench, in the case of DCIT vs\nSharp Mint Ltd, reported

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

546 (Bombay), \"wherein, no disallowance of the bogus purchases can be\nmade on the basis of the information received from sales tax department that assessee\nwas beneficiary of accommodation entries without disputing the corresponding sales\ntransactions.\nFurther, the assessee relied upon the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench, in the case of DCIT vs\nSharp Mint Ltd, reported

ITO WD 48(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI PUSPAL KUMAR DAS, HOWRAH

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, A.M. & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, J.M.)

bogus liabilities. He went on to hold that - "Application of Section 41(1) presupposes genuineness of allowed in ea1ier years. The fact that the assessee has claimed the said sum as expenditures in earlier years cannot be denied. As the liability ceased to exist as on 31.03.2007, as found during the proceeding, the sum of Rs.16,67,546/- is added

M/S GANESHMULL BIJAY SINGH BAID (HUF),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CC - XXVII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

546-548/Kol/2013-A-AM 4 M/s. Ganeshmull Bijay Singh Baid(HUF), Mr. Basant Kumar Baid, M/s. Basant Kumar Baid (HUF) & Mr. Basant Kumar Baid year corresponding to AY 2005-0-6 the learned CIT(A) completely neglected to take into account the fact that the relevant shares had been purchased by the appellant two years back