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

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

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and\nappeals of the revenue are dismissed

bogus purchases has no\nlegs to stand. Moreover we find that the coal manufacturing requirement\nof the plant are within the acceptable norms and parameters as has been\nprescribed by the government in the manufacturing process of steel. Even if we\nassume that there has been purchase of coal from the Majee Group, then\nthe same might have used

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

bogus purchases has no\nlegs to stand. Moreover we find that the coal manufacturing requirement\nof the plant are within the acceptable norms and parameters as has been\nprescribed by the government in the manufacturing process of steel. Even if we\nassume that there has been purchase of coal from the Majee Group, then\nthe same might have used

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

bogus purchases has no\nlegs to stand. Moreover we find that the coal manufacturing requirement\nof the plant are within the acceptable norms and parameters as has been\nprescribed by the government in the manufacturing process of steel. Even if we\nassume that there has been purchase of coal from the Majee Group, then\nthe same might have used

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

bogus purchases has no\nlegs to stand. Moreover we find that the coal manufacturing requirement\nof the plant are within the acceptable norms and parameters as has been\nprescribed by the government in the manufacturing process of steel. Even if we\nassume that there has been purchase of coal from the Majee Group, then\nthe same might have used

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

bogus purchases has no\nlegs to stand. Moreover we find that the coal manufacturing requirement\nof the plant are within the acceptable norms and parameters as has been\nprescribed by the government in the manufacturing process of steel. Even if we\nassume that there has been purchase of coal from the Majee Group, then\nthe same might have used

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1),, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

bogus purchases has no\nlegs to stand. Moreover we find that the coal manufacturing requirement\nof the plant are within the acceptable norms and parameters as has been\nprescribed by the government in the manufacturing process of steel. Even if we\nassume that there has been purchase of coal from the Majee Group, then\nthe same might have used

D.C.I.T., CC - 3(1),, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

bogus purchases has no\nlegs to stand. Moreover we find that the coal manufacturing requirement\nof the plant are within the acceptable norms and parameters as has been\nprescribed by the government in the manufacturing process of steel. Even if we\nassume that there has been purchase of coal from the Majee Group, then\nthe same might have used

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

bogus purchases has no\nlegs to stand. Moreover we find that the coal manufacturing requirement\nof the plant are within the acceptable norms and parameters as has been\nprescribed by the government in the manufacturing process of steel. Even if we\nassume that there has been purchase of coal from the Majee Group, then\nthe same might have used

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

bogus purchases has no\nlegs to stand. Moreover we find that the coal manufacturing requirement\nof the plant are within the acceptable norms and parameters as has been\nprescribed by the government in the manufacturing process of steel. Even if we\nassume that there has been purchase of coal from the Majee Group, then\nthe same might have used

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

bogus purchases has no\nlegs to stand. Moreover we find that the coal manufacturing requirement\nof the plant are within the acceptable norms and parameters as has been\nprescribed by the government in the manufacturing process of steel. Even if we\nassume that there has been purchase of coal from the Majee Group, then\nthe same might have used

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

bogus purchases has no\nlegs to stand. Moreover we find that the coal manufacturing requirement\nof the plant are within the acceptable norms and parameters as has been\nprescribed by the government in the manufacturing process of steel. Even if we\nassume that there has been purchase of coal from the Majee Group, then\nthe same might have used

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

bogus purchases has no\nlegs to stand. Moreover we find that the coal manufacturing requirement\nof the plant are within the acceptable norms and parameters as has been\nprescribed by the government in the manufacturing process of steel. Even if we\nassume that there has been purchase of coal from the Majee Group, then\nthe same might have used

M/S BIHARI LAL MALPANI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 43(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey & Shri M. Balaganeshi.T.A. No.527/Kol/2017 (Assessment Year 2013-14) M/S Bihari Lal Malpani Ito, Ward-43(1), Kolkata. -Vs- [Pan :Adupm 6438 R]

set-off their profit. The methodology used was the same. The beneficiary who wants loss buys the share at high rate from the beneficiary who is taking LTCG. ' In para 2.10 the AO has listed names of 84 scripts furnished by the investigation ring which are alleged to be used for providing bogus accommodation entries of loss or gain

SANDIP KUMAR TEKRIWAL HUF,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 10, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, these three appeals of three assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1134/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11)

setting aside the reassessment order passed by the Ld. AO whereas the said order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 4. For that the reassessment order having been passed by the Ld. AO after due application of mind whereby the Ld. AO accepted the sale and held that there cannot be any sales without corresponding purchase

SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR TEKRIWAL,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 10, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, these three appeals of three assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1134/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11)

setting aside the reassessment order passed by the Ld. AO whereas the said order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 4. For that the reassessment order having been passed by the Ld. AO after due application of mind whereby the Ld. AO accepted the sale and held that there cannot be any sales without corresponding purchase

BINOD KUMAR TEKRIWAL HUF,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 10, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, these three appeals of three assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1134/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11)

setting aside the reassessment order passed by the Ld. AO whereas the said order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 4. For that the reassessment order having been passed by the Ld. AO after due application of mind whereby the Ld. AO accepted the sale and held that there cannot be any sales without corresponding purchase