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]

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 11. We note that other than aforesaid reason, no other statements of Shri Rajendra Jain or another were furnished to the assessee, despite they asking for it, which the Ld. CIT(A) at page 60 justified the omission of AO by stating that “the relevant material relating to appellant were already included

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]

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 11. We note that other than aforesaid reason, no other statements of Shri Rajendra Jain or another were furnished to the assessee, despite they asking for it, which the Ld. CIT(A) at page 60 justified the omission of AO by stating that “the relevant material relating to appellant were already included

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]

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 11. We note that other than aforesaid reason, no other statements of Shri Rajendra Jain or another were furnished to the assessee, despite they asking for it, which the Ld. CIT(A) at page 60 justified the omission of AO by stating that “the relevant material relating to appellant were already included

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)

73,68,120/­. 3. The appellant has taken following grounds of appeal: 1.For that the Assessing Officer was quite unjustified by disallowing purchases of Rs.2,50,21,568/­ as bogus purchases though the supporting evidences were given to the Assessing Officer during the course of scrutiny. 2. For that Assessing Officer has framed the Assessment Order based on Hypothetical imaginary

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

M/S. HINDISTHAN ENGINEEING & INDISTRIES LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -5 KOLKATA, 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

M/S. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result Ground no. 1 & 3 of the revenue are allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd…….............................................................……………………..Appellant 27, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aaecs 0765 R] Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-12 Kolkata……...............................…….…..Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13

73,80,890/-. Later it filed a revised return of income on 30/03/2013, declaring the same income. The Assessing Officer completed assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on 30/03/2014 interalia making disallowances on account of (a) bogus purchases and bogus sub-contract expenses, (b) deduction u/s 80-IA(4) of the Act, (c) disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r

M/S. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result Ground no. 1 & 3 of the revenue are allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd…….............................................................……………………..Appellant 27, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aaecs 0765 R] Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-12 Kolkata……...............................…….…..Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13

73,80,890/-. Later it filed a revised return of income on 30/03/2013, declaring the same income. The Assessing Officer completed assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on 30/03/2014 interalia making disallowances on account of (a) bogus purchases and bogus sub-contract expenses, (b) deduction u/s 80-IA(4) of the Act, (c) disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r

ACIT, CIRCLE-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result Ground no. 1 & 3 of the revenue are allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd…….............................................................……………………..Appellant 27, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aaecs 0765 R] Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-12 Kolkata……...............................…….…..Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13

73,80,890/-. Later it filed a revised return of income on 30/03/2013, declaring the same income. The Assessing Officer completed assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on 30/03/2014 interalia making disallowances on account of (a) bogus purchases and bogus sub-contract expenses, (b) deduction u/s 80-IA(4) of the Act, (c) disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r

ACIT, CIRCLE-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result Ground no. 1 & 3 of the revenue are allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd…….............................................................……………………..Appellant 27, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aaecs 0765 R] Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-12 Kolkata……...............................…….…..Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13

73,80,890/-. Later it filed a revised return of income on 30/03/2013, declaring the same income. The Assessing Officer completed assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on 30/03/2014 interalia making disallowances on account of (a) bogus purchases and bogus sub-contract expenses, (b) deduction u/s 80-IA(4) of the Act, (c) disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r

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

73% of the total\npurchases and accepting the sales of Rs.17,19,600/-, without considering\nthe gross profit earned by the appellant in its business and hence such\nadditions are liable to be deleted.\nGround-4: For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in\nlaw, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming subject additions

DCIT, CIR. -7(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S SHREE JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.591,592&593/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata.................................................................……Appellant Vs. M/S Shreejee Jewellers Pvt. Ltd..…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent 103, Park Street, Kolkata-700016. [Pan: Aaecs8312C] Appearances By: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Partha Pratim Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 11, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 24, 2022 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders All Dated 23.06.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since, The Appeals Pertained To The Same Assessee & Common Issues Are Involved & Hence, All These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order. The Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.591/Kol/2021 For Assessment Year 2007-08 Is Taken As The Lead Case. 2. Ita No.591/Kol/2021 - The Revenue In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

73,026/- after disallowing a sum of Rs.1,49,20,200/- as bogus purchases under the provisions of section 69C of the Act. 4. Being

DCIT, CIR. -7(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S SHREE JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.591,592&593/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata.................................................................……Appellant Vs. M/S Shreejee Jewellers Pvt. Ltd..…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent 103, Park Street, Kolkata-700016. [Pan: Aaecs8312C] Appearances By: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Partha Pratim Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 11, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 24, 2022 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders All Dated 23.06.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since, The Appeals Pertained To The Same Assessee & Common Issues Are Involved & Hence, All These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order. The Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.591/Kol/2021 For Assessment Year 2007-08 Is Taken As The Lead Case. 2. Ita No.591/Kol/2021 - The Revenue In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

73,026/- after disallowing a sum of Rs.1,49,20,200/- as bogus purchases under the provisions of section 69C of the Act. 4. Being

DCIT, CIR. -7(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S SHREE JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.591,592&593/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata.................................................................……Appellant Vs. M/S Shreejee Jewellers Pvt. Ltd..…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent 103, Park Street, Kolkata-700016. [Pan: Aaecs8312C] Appearances By: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Partha Pratim Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 11, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 24, 2022 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders All Dated 23.06.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since, The Appeals Pertained To The Same Assessee & Common Issues Are Involved & Hence, All These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order. The Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.591/Kol/2021 For Assessment Year 2007-08 Is Taken As The Lead Case. 2. Ita No.591/Kol/2021 - The Revenue In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

73,026/- after disallowing a sum of Rs.1,49,20,200/- as bogus purchases under the provisions of section 69C of the Act. 4. Being

SRI GAUTAM KUMAR PINCHA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 34(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am] I.T.A. No. 2302/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Gautam Kumar Pincha................................……………………………………………Appellant Room No. 604, 6Th Floor, 19, Synagogue Street, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Akgpp 6211 L] I.T.O. Ward 34(4) Kolkata,...................……………………………………………............Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Appearances By: Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P.K. Mandal, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 19, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 11, 2018

section 148 on 11.06.2015. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the assessee was called upon by the A.O. to clarify the information received by the A.O. regarding bogus purchase of diamonds from M/s. Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd. In reply, the following explanation was offered by the assessee: “At the outset, your assessee denies completely the allegation of bogus purchases

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SAWANSUKHA JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, CO of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Sawansukhajewellers Acit, Circle-7(1), Private Limited 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, 4Th Floor, 9, Camac Street, Vs. Kolkata-700069, Kolkata-700017, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafcs2477R Co No. 32/Kol/2024 (Airing Out Of The Ita No. 1615/Kol/2024 For A.Y. 2018-19) Sawansukhajewellers Acit, Circle-7(1), Private Limited 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 4Th Floor, 9, Camac Street, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Kolkata-700017, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kapil Mondal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2025

bogus purchases by the ld. CIT (A) by ignoring the fact that all these purchases were supported with the relevant evidences and the rate applied by the ld. CIT (A) is imaginary and hypothetical. 03. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 30.10.2008, declaring total income at ₹29,74,75,300/-. The case

ACIT, CIR-40, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S LUMENS INDIA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: : Shri P.M Jagtap & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

section 143(3). Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the impugned addition of Rs.49,01,811/- on account of bogus purchases. The addition cannot be sustained. The same is hereby deleted. This ground of appeal is accordingly allowed. “ 9. Before us the ld.DR submits

BISWABRATA MAITY,HOOGHLY vs. CIT, -XX, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2009-10

73,28,135/- are not reported in the books and accordingly, not disclosed in the return filed by the appellant. However, such purchases cannot be subjected to addition in their entirety. It is an accepted position that any sale proceeds received from such activity is available with the appellant for subsequent payments on account of purchases and, therefore