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

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

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

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

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-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the\nCOs of the assessee are partly allowed

80,087/- in respect of bogus purchases (ii)\nAddition in respect of unexplained cash credit of ₹1.00 crore and (Iii)\naddition on account of bogus interest expenses of ₹54,795/-, by\nassessing the income at ₹1,91,28,960/-.\n06. In the appellate proceedings, the Id. CIT (A) allowed the appeal of\nthe assessee by directing

NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

purchase order received by the assessee regarding the alleged sale. The ledger of M/s. Ambika Ispat Udyog is on page 69 of the paper book which contains details, but nothing is mentioned about the details of sales made. Before the Ld. CIT(A)/Ld. AO, the details of transportation could not be furnished. Our attention was also drawn

NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

purchase order received by the assessee regarding the alleged sale. The ledger of M/s. Ambika Ispat Udyog is on page 69 of the paper book which contains details, but nothing is mentioned about the details of sales made. Before the Ld. CIT(A)/Ld. AO, the details of transportation could not be furnished. Our attention was also drawn

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. DHANSAR ENGINEERING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

80,000/-. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been partly allowed. The Ld. CIT(A) has directed the AO to delete Rs. 59,67,500/- against the addition made by the AO to the tune

DEPUTY COMMISSOENR OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

80 days in ITA No. 1729/KOL/2024 for which the condonation petitions have been moved by the Revenue wherein it has been stated that in order to file the appeals, the files have to go through various stages in the hierarchy for obtaining the approvals and hence, the delay has occurred in filing the appeal. Considering the contents

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

80 days in ITA No. 1729/KOL/2024 for which the condonation petitions have been moved by the Revenue wherein it has been stated that in order to file the appeals, the files have to go through various stages in the hierarchy for obtaining the approvals and hence, the delay has occurred in filing the appeal. Considering the contents

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 4 KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

80,087/- in respect of bogus purchases (ii) Addition in respect of unexplained cash credit of ₹1.00 crore and (Iii) addition on account of bogus interest expenses of ₹54,795/-, by assessing the income at ₹1,91,28,960/-. 06. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by directing

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

80,087/- in respect of bogus purchases (ii) Addition in respect of unexplained cash credit of ₹1.00 crore and (Iii) addition on account of bogus interest expenses of ₹54,795/-, by assessing the income at ₹1,91,28,960/-. 06. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by directing