ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. SHRI MURARILAL 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

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SIDHANT GUPTA, NEW DELHI

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

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. SHRI SANJAY DHINGRA, NEW DELHI

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

WEXFORD SALES PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. No. 1319/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 M/S. Wexford Sales Pvt. Limited,…………....Appellant 44, Ezra Street, Room No. 5A, Ground Floor, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aaacw2151P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………….………………Respondent Ward-6(4), Kolkata

5A, Ground Floor, Kolkata-700001 [PAN:AAACW2151P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………….………………Respondent Ward-6(4), Kolkata Appearances by: Shri V.N. Dubey, A.R., appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri Chandan Das, Addl. CIT (D.R.), appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing: February 27, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order: April

KAJORA PACHAI & C.S. SHOP,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD - 1(3), DURGAPUR, BURDWAN

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2008-09

5A. The payments by way of deposit of cash directly in the Bank A/c of the wholesaler Agent of West Bengal Government in terms of Calcutta Gazette notification No. 188-EX/0/R-4/2000 dt. 23/02/2000. The payments made is therefore, otherwise covered under Rule 6DD(b) of the I. T. Rules to which provisions of Sec. 40A(3) are inapplicable

SHRI PRABIR KUMAR MULLICK,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD - 3(1), ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2008-09 Prabir Kumar Mullick V/S. Income Tax Officer, Searsol C.S.Shop, Ward-3(1), G.T. Road Shisubagan (Kalali Gali) (West), Asansol Ranigunj (Burdwan) [Pan No.Ajepm 7142 G] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

5A. The payments by way of deposit of cash directly in the Bank A/c of the wholesaler Agent of West Bengal Government in terms of Calcutta Gazette notification No. 188-EX/0/R-4/2000 dt. 23/02/2000. The payments made is therefore, otherwise covered under Rule 6DD(b) of the I. T. Rules to which provisions of Sec. 40A(3) are inapplicable

SRI MALAY MONDAL,BURDWAN vs. I.T.O WD - 2(2),ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

5A. The payments by way of deposit of cash directly in the Bank A/c of the wholesaler Agent of West Bengal Government in terms of Calcutta Gazette notification No. 188-EX/0/R-4/2000 dt. 23/02/2000. The payments made is therefore, otherwise covered under Rule 6DD(b) of the I. T. Rules to which provisions of Sec. 40A(3) are inapplicable

BHAGYA LAKHI ROY (PROP), BIJOY NARAYAN ROY (DECD),BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD - 3(1), ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2008-09

5A. The payments by way of deposit of cash directly in the Bank A/c of the wholesaler Agent of West Bengal Government in terms of Calcutta Gazette notification No. 188-EX/0/R-4/2000 dt. 23/02/2000. The payments made is ITA No.1602.Kol/2011 A.Y. 2008-09 Bijoy N Roy (dead) v. ITO Wd-3(1), ASL. Page 6 therefore, otherwise covered under Rule

SATYAM SUREKA ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the different assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey] I.T.(S.S).A. No. 13 /Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 Satyam Sureka Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-3(3), Kolkata

purchased and sold through recognized broker and the sale considerations were received by account payee cheques, the transactions cannot be treated as bogus.” 9 IT(S.S)A Nos. 13,14 & 15/Kol/2025 I.T.A. No. 152/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15&2015-16 Satyam Sureka & Ors. 8. In view of the discussion made above as well as going over the cited

AJIT KUMAR PATNI,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-28(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

purchased for Rs. 1 lakh by the assessee. The ld. AO while doing so added another sum of Rs. 7032/- being alleged as commission charged @ ½ per rupee on cheque amount of Rs. 14,06,404/- and calculate interest u/s 234B of the Act of Rs. 4,07,238/- upon the assessee. Similarly, the ld. AO added Rs. 6821/- u/s 234C

AJIT KUMAR PATNI,KOLKATA vs. IT0, WD-28(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

purchased for Rs. 1 lakh by the assessee. The ld. AO while doing so added another sum of Rs. 7032/- being alleged as commission charged @ ½ per rupee on cheque amount of Rs. 14,06,404/- and calculate interest u/s 234B of the Act of Rs. 4,07,238/- upon the assessee. Similarly, the ld. AO added Rs. 6821/- u/s 234C

BALAJEE METALLIC,PCIT vs. PCIT-1, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 227/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Balajee Metallic,……………………………..……Appellant 5A, Hospital Street, Chandni Chawk, Kolkata-700072 [Pan:Aamfb7518E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Kolkata-1, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 13, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 10, 2024 O R D E R

5A, Hospital Street, Chandni Chawk, Kolkata-700072 [PAN:AAMFB7518E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,…Respondent Kolkata-1, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances by: N o n e, appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D.R., appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing : August 13, 2024 Date