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

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

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

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

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

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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-36(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SAHA AGENCY, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed and the Cross Objection of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

section 194C of the Act could not be made applicable to the facts of 5 ITA No.2453/K/2013 & CO No.139/K/2013 M/s. Saha Agency, AY 2010-11 this case. We find that the Learned DR was not able to advance any specific arguments before us against the order of Ld. CIT(A). Hence, the ground no. 1 of revenue appeal is dismissed

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

GANAPATI DEVELOPERS ,HOWRAH vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-47, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Madhumita Roy)

Section 68 of the Act or otherwise. e) On merits he submitted that the assessee never purchased any goods for the amount of ₹31,98,388/- from both these enterprises and it was much lesser amount of goods which were purchased and hence the disallowance on the ground that these were bogus purchases, is bad in law. He referred