DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3.1, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

section 132(4) of the Act dated\n02.12.2018, wherein they had admitted that they were arranging\ncash loans in lieu of commission. It was observed that one\npromissory note on the letterhead of the assessee was also seized,\nwhich stated that, the appellant was in receipt of Rs.50,000/-from\none Mr. Amit Agarwal. According to the AO, there

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), , KOLKATA

section 132(4) of the Act dated\n02.12.2018, wherein they had admitted that they were arranging\ncash loans in lieu of commission. It was observed that one\npromissory note on the letterhead of the assessee was also seized,\nwhich stated that, the appellant was in receipt of Rs.50,000/-from\none Mr. Amit Agarwal. According to the AO, there

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), , KOLKATA

section 132(4) of the Act dated\n02.12.2018, wherein they had admitted that they were arranging\ncash loans in lieu of commission. It was observed that one\npromissory note on the letterhead of the assessee was also seized,\nwhich stated that, the appellant was in receipt of Rs.50,000/-from\none Mr. Amit Agarwal. According to the AO, there

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

section 69C of the Act.\nI have taken into consideration the submissions of the appellant,\nalready extracted above and the findings of the AO as well as the\nmaterial placed on record, It is noted that the impugned addition\nemanated from the information available with the Department,\nwhich was gathered during the course of search and seizure\noperation conducted under

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

section 132(4) of the Act dated\n02.12.2018, wherein they had admitted that they were arranging\ncash loans in lieu of commission. It was observed that one\npromissory note on the letterhead of the assessee was also seized,\nwhich stated that, the appellant was in receipt of Rs.50,000/-from\none Mr. Amit Agarwal. According to the AO, there

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAJSHRI IRON INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrisonjoy Sarma, Jm

Section shows that the provisions operate only when an expenditure is shown to have been incurred by an Assessee. In the present case, the revenue can take advantage of the deeming provisions of Sec.69C of the Act only when there is material on record which shows that the Assessee has incurred any expenditure. It is respectfully submitted that the material

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAJSHRI IRON INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrisonjoy Sarma, Jm

Section shows that the provisions operate only when an expenditure is shown to have been incurred by an Assessee. In the present case, the revenue can take advantage of the deeming provisions of Sec.69C of the Act only when there is material on record which shows that the Assessee has incurred any expenditure. It is respectfully submitted that the material

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

bogus shareholders, the Revenue can reopen their individual assessment and addition cannot be made in the hands of the recipient company: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the assessment order as the transaction entered into by the assessee was a scheme for laundering black money into white money

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

bogus shareholders, the Revenue can reopen their individual assessment and addition cannot be made in the hands of the recipient company: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the assessment order as the transaction entered into by the assessee was a scheme for laundering black money into white money

M D DIESEL SPARES,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-47, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.1430/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M D Diesel Spares………..………………………… ........................……Appellant 7/12, Kings Road, Howrah-711101. [Pan: Aakfm7649F] Vs. Ito, Ward-47(2), Kolkata..................…................…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tibrewal & Saurabh Gupta, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Prabir Gupta Choudhury, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 26, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 03, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.10.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Addition Of Rs.18,85,520/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 69C Of The Act On Account Of Bogus Purchases. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Firm Is Involved In The Business Of Spare Parts Of The Machinery. The Assessee Firm For The Year Under Consideration Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.45,150/-. The Said Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The

90,400/- and M/s Gajraj Sales Pvt. Ltd. of Rs.10,95,120/-, totalling Rs.18,85,520/- during the financial year 2011-12 relevant to assessment year under consideration. The assessment of the assessee on the basis of the aforesaid information was reopened u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act. During the reassessment proceedings, the assessee submitted various documents such

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RANGE-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

90 of the Act and the relevant DTAA which India had entered into with the country concerned. The AO noted that remittances were made to 8 foreign parties aggregating to Rs. 2,60,15,388/- 11 I.T.A. Nos.1068 & 1166/Kol/2017 ITA Nos. 1222 & 1223/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 ITC Limited. ( wrongly mentioned in AO’s order

DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

90 of the Act and the relevant DTAA which India had entered into with the country concerned. The AO noted that remittances were made to 8 foreign parties aggregating to Rs. 2,60,15,388/- 11 I.T.A. Nos.1068 & 1166/Kol/2017 ITA Nos. 1222 & 1223/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 ITC Limited. ( wrongly mentioned in AO’s order

DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

90 of the Act and the relevant DTAA which India had entered into with the country concerned. The AO noted that remittances were made to 8 foreign parties aggregating to Rs. 2,60,15,388/- 11 I.T.A. Nos.1068 & 1166/Kol/2017 ITA Nos. 1222 & 1223/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 ITC Limited. ( wrongly mentioned in AO’s order

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RANGE-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

90 of the Act and the relevant DTAA which India had entered into with the country concerned. The AO noted that remittances were made to 8 foreign parties aggregating to Rs. 2,60,15,388/- 11 I.T.A. Nos.1068 & 1166/Kol/2017 ITA Nos. 1222 & 1223/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 ITC Limited. ( wrongly mentioned in AO’s order

MEGHA TRADING CO.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 43(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

90,685/- and ought not to have confirmed the treatment given by the A.O. to the transaction treating the same as accommodation entries on the alleged grounds. 5. For that the appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify, substitute, add to, abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds.” II. ITA No. 399/KOL/2025

MEGHA TRADING CO.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 43(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

90,685/- and ought not to have confirmed the treatment given by the A.O. to the transaction treating the same as accommodation entries on the alleged grounds. 5. For that the appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify, substitute, add to, abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds.” II. ITA No. 399/KOL/2025

ITO, WARD-3(1), ASANSOL vs. SANJAY TRANSPORT AGENCY, RANIGUNG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the cross- appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A No.567/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sanjay Transport Agency............................................................................….. Appellant 41, N.S.B. Road, Raniganj – 713347. [Pan: Aavfs6659N] Vs. Acit, Circle-3(1), Asansol...............................................................…… …. Respondent I.T.A No.633/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ito, Ward-3(1), Asansol............................................................................….. Appellant Vs. Sanjay Transport Agency...............................................................…… …. Respondent 41, N.S.B. Road, Raniganj – 713347. [Pan: Aavfs6659N] Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Adv. & Shri Aryan Kochar, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vivek Verma, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 13, 2023 आदेश / Order मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद"य "वारा / Per Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Filed By The Assessee & Cross Appeal Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Asansol Both Dated 22.09.2020 Are Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In Ita No.567/Kol/2020 Has Taken The Following 2. Grounds Of Appeal:

90,48,000.00 07.02.2009 No.IM100000419) Total cost of machines 4,24,59 040.00 Note: Parts amounting to Rs. (20,16,102.00+ 10,36,880.00) Total Rs.30,52,982.00 used for repairs during the year under review. From above this is very clear that some of these are very old and costly machines and used under very difficult situations. (IX) Heavy

SANJAY TRANSPORT AGENCY,RANIGANJ vs. ACIT, CIR. 3(1), ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the cross- appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A No.567/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sanjay Transport Agency............................................................................….. Appellant 41, N.S.B. Road, Raniganj – 713347. [Pan: Aavfs6659N] Vs. Acit, Circle-3(1), Asansol...............................................................…… …. Respondent I.T.A No.633/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ito, Ward-3(1), Asansol............................................................................….. Appellant Vs. Sanjay Transport Agency...............................................................…… …. Respondent 41, N.S.B. Road, Raniganj – 713347. [Pan: Aavfs6659N] Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Adv. & Shri Aryan Kochar, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vivek Verma, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 13, 2023 आदेश / Order मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद"य "वारा / Per Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Filed By The Assessee & Cross Appeal Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Asansol Both Dated 22.09.2020 Are Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In Ita No.567/Kol/2020 Has Taken The Following 2. Grounds Of Appeal:

90,48,000.00 07.02.2009 No.IM100000419) Total cost of machines 4,24,59 040.00 Note: Parts amounting to Rs. (20,16,102.00+ 10,36,880.00) Total Rs.30,52,982.00 used for repairs during the year under review. From above this is very clear that some of these are very old and costly machines and used under very difficult situations. (IX) Heavy