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

section 80-IA(13) does not apply. Explanation to section 80- IA(13) merely distinguishes between a developer and works contractor. It clarifies that a works contractor shall not be included in the category of 'developer' u/s 80-1A. Thus, the Explanation clearly does not apply to O&M projects. Hence, deduction of Rs. 35,16,9411- claimed

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

section 80-IA(13) does not apply. Explanation to section 80- IA(13) merely distinguishes between a developer and works contractor. It clarifies that a works contractor shall not be included in the category of 'developer' u/s 80-1A. Thus, the Explanation clearly does not apply to O&M projects. Hence, deduction of Rs. 35,16,9411- claimed

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

bogus\nexpenses\n2020-21\nSunbright Trexim Pvt Ltd\nRs.1,05,00,000/-\nRs.5,03,372/-\nShristi Investment Pvt Ltd\nRs.80,00,000/-\nRs.3,80,213/-\nShrey Finance & Investment Pvt Ltd\nRs.90,00,000/-\nRs.4,19,607/-\nGinvani Merchants Pvt Ltd\nRs.20,00,000/-\nRs.92,951/-\nAssam Hire Purchase Co Pvt Ltd\nRs.1,46,00,000/-\nRs.5,29,354/-\nVishesh Marketing

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

bogus\nexpenses\n2020-21\nSunbright Trexim Pvt Ltd\nRs.1,05,00,000/-\nRs.5,03,372/-\nShristi Investment Pvt Ltd\nRs.80,00,000/-\nRs.3,80,213/-\nShrey Finance & Investment Pvt Ltd\nRs.90,00,000/-\nRs.4,19,607/-\nGinvani Merchants Pvt Ltd\nRs.20,00,000/-\nRs.92,951/-\nAssam Hire Purchase Co Pvt Ltd\nRs.1,46,00,000/-\nRs.5,29,354/-\nVishesh Marketing

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

bogus\nexpenses\n2020-21\nSunbright Trexim Pvt Ltd\nRs.1,05,00,000/-\nRs.5,03,372/-\nShristi Investment Pvt Ltd\nRs.80,00,000/-\nRs.3,80,213/-\nShrey Finance & Investment Pvt Ltd\nRs.90,00,000/-\nRs.4,19,607/-\nGinvani Merchants Pvt Ltd\nRs.20,00,000/-\nRs.92,951/-\nAssam Hire Purchase Co Pvt Ltd\nRs.1,46,00,000/-\nRs.5,29,354/-\nVishesh Marketing

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

bogus\nexpenses\n2020-21\nSunbright Trexim Pvt Ltd\nRs.1,05,00,000/-\nRs.5,03,372/-\nShristi Investment Pvt Ltd\nRs.80,00,000/-\nRs.3,80,213/-\nShrey Finance & Investment Pvt Ltd\nRs.90,00,000/-\nRs.4,19,607/-\nGinvani Merchants Pvt Ltd\nRs.20,00,000/-\nRs.92,951/-\nAssam Hire Purchase Co Pvt Ltd\nRs.1,46,00,000/-\nRs.5,29,354/-\nVishesh Marketing

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

bogus\nexpenses\n2020-21\nSunbright Trexim Pvt Ltd\nRs.1,05,00,000/-\nRs.5,03,372/-\nShristi Investment Pvt Ltd\nRs.80,00,000/-\nRs.3,80,213/-\nShrey Finance & Investment Pvt Ltd\nRs.90,00,000/-\nRs.4,19,607/-\nGinvani Merchants Pvt Ltd\nRs.20,00,000/-\nRs.92,951/-\nAssam Hire Purchase Co Pvt Ltd\nRs.1,46,00,000/-\nRs.5,29,354/-\nVishesh Marketing

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

bogus\nexpenses\n2020-21\nSunbright Trexim Pvt Ltd\nRs.1,05,00,000/-\nRs.5,03,372/-\nShristi Investment Pvt Ltd\nRs.80,00,000/-\nRs.3,80,213/-\nShrey Finance & Investment Pvt Ltd\nRs.90,00,000/-\nRs.4,19,607/-\nGinvani Merchants Pvt Ltd\nRs.20,00,000/-\nRs.92,951/-\nAssam Hire Purchase Co Pvt Ltd\nRs.1,46,00,000/-\nRs.5,29,354/-\nVishesh Marketing

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

bogus\nexpenses\n2020-21\nSunbright Trexim Pvt Ltd\nRs.1,05,00,000/-\nRs.5,03,372/-\nShristi Investment Pvt Ltd\nRs.80,00,000/-\nRs.3,80,213/-\nShrey Finance & Investment Pvt Ltd\nRs.90,00,000/-\nRs.4,19,607/-\nGinvani Merchants Pvt Ltd\nRs.20,00,000/-\nRs.92,951/-\nAssam Hire Purchase Co Pvt Ltd\nRs.1,46,00,000/-\nRs.5,29,354/-\nVishesh Marketing

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

bogus\nexpenses\n2020-21\nSunbright Trexim Pvt Ltd\nRs.1,05,00,000/-\nRs.5,03,372/-\nShristi Investment Pvt Ltd\nRs.80,00,000/-\nRs.3,80,213/-\nShrey Finance & Investment Pvt Ltd\nRs.90,00,000/-\nRs.4,19,607/-\nGinvani Merchants Pvt Ltd\nRs.20,00,000/-\nRs.92,951/-\nAssam Hire Purchase Co Pvt Ltd\nRs.1,46,00,000/-\nRs.5,29,354/-\nVishesh Marketing

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

bogus\nexpenses\n2020-21\nSunbright Trexim Pvt Ltd\nRs.1,05,00,000/-\nRs.5,03,372/-\nShristi Investment Pvt Ltd\nRs.80,00,000/-\nRs.3,80,213/-\nShrey Finance & Investment Pvt Ltd\nRs.90,00,000/-\nRs.4,19,607/-\nGinvani Merchants Pvt Ltd\nRs.20,00,000/-\nRs.92,951/-\nAssam Hire Purchase Co Pvt Ltd\nRs.1,46,00,000/-\nRs.5,29,354/-\nVishesh Marketing

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

bogus\nexpenses\n2020-21\nSunbright Trexim Pvt Ltd\nRs.1,05,00,000/-\nRs.5,03,372/-\nShristi Investment Pvt Ltd\nRs.80,00,000/-\nRs.3,80,213/-\nShrey Finance & Investment Pvt Ltd\nRs.90,00,000/-\nRs.4,19,607/-\nGinvani Merchants Pvt Ltd\nRs.20,00,000/-\nRs.92,951/-\nAssam Hire Purchase Co Pvt Ltd\nRs.1,46,00,000/-\nRs.5,29,354/-\nVishesh Marketing

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

bogus\nexpenses\n2020-21\nSunbright Trexim Pvt Ltd\nRs.1,05,00,000/-\nRs.5,03,372/-\nShristi Investment Pvt Ltd\nRs.80,00,000/-\nRs.3,80,213/-\nShrey Finance & Investment Pvt Ltd\nRs.90,00,000/-\nRs.4,19,607/-\nGinvani Merchants Pvt Ltd\nRs.20,00,000/-\nRs.92,951/-\nAssam Hire Purchase Co Pvt Ltd\nRs.1,46,00,000/-\nRs.5,29,354/-\nVishesh Marketing

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

bogus\nexpenses\n2020-21\nSunbright Trexim Pvt Ltd\nRs.1,05,00,000/-\nRs.5,03,372/-\nShristi Investment Pvt Ltd\nRs.80,00,000/-\nRs.3,80,213/-\nShrey Finance & Investment Pvt Ltd\nRs.90,00,000/-\nRs.4,19,607/-\nGinvani Merchants Pvt Ltd\nRs.20,00,000/-\nRs.92,951/-\nAssam Hire Purchase Co Pvt Ltd\nRs.1,46,00,000/-\nRs.5,29,354/-\nVishesh Marketing

SATYA PRAKASH SHARMA ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, KOLKATA - 12, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.4,43 cr. We note that the AO had issued “reasons to reopen” vide letter dated 10.08.2015 (refer pages 42-43 paper book) and pursuant to which the assessee filed his reply vide letter dated 31.08.2015 (refer pages 44-48 paper book) and AO thereafter issued notice u/s. 142(1) dated 15.10.2015 pursuant

SATYA PRAKASH SHARMA ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, KOLKATA - 12, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.4,43 cr. We note that the AO had issued “reasons to reopen” vide letter dated 10.08.2015 (refer pages 42-43 paper book) and pursuant to which the assessee filed his reply vide letter dated 31.08.2015 (refer pages 44-48 paper book) and AO thereafter issued notice u/s. 142(1) dated 15.10.2015 pursuant

SATYA PRAKASH SHARMA ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, KOLKATA - 12, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.4,43 cr. We note that the AO had issued “reasons to reopen” vide letter dated 10.08.2015 (refer pages 42-43 paper book) and pursuant to which the assessee filed his reply vide letter dated 31.08.2015 (refer pages 44-48 paper book) and AO thereafter issued notice u/s. 142(1) dated 15.10.2015 pursuant

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.)

80,180” 8.4 As mentioned above, the A.O. had already disallowed the purchases shown from these parties in the current year on the similar grounds as bogus purchases and has considered the difference in respect of the outstanding balance of these creditors on 31.03.2007 as cessation of liability u/s.41(1). It is however seen that the A.O. has while disallowing