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

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. Since these appeals relate to the related companies and issues involved are mostly common, therefore these are being decided by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. First of all, we shall take 1395/KOL/2025 (assessee’s appeal) A.Y. 2015-16 in case of Balmukund Sponge and Iron

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

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. Since these appeals relate to the related companies and issues involved are mostly common, therefore these are being decided by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. First of all, we shall take 1395/KOL/2025 (assessee’s appeal) A.Y. 2015-16 in case of Balmukund Sponge and Iron

GOPAL & SONS HUF,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 32(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. Since these appeals relate to the related companies and issues involved are mostly common, therefore these are being decided by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. First of all, we shall take 1395/KOL/2025 (assessee’s appeal) A.Y. 2015-16 in case of Balmukund Sponge and Iron

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.\n3. Since these appeals relate to the related companies and\nissues\ninvolved are mostly common, therefore these are being decided by this\ncommon order for the sake of convenience and brevity. First of all, we\nshall take 1395/KOL/2025 (assessee's appeal) A.Y. 2015-16 in case of\nBalmukund Sponge and Iron

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.\n3. Since these appeals relate to the related companies and issues\ninvolved are mostly common, therefore these are being decided by this\ncommon order for the sake of convenience and brevity. First of all, we\nshall take 1395/KOL/2025 (assessee's appeal) A.Y. 2015-16 in case of\nBalmukund Sponge and Iron

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.\n3. Since these appeals relate to the related companies and issues\ninvolved are mostly common, therefore these are being decided by this\ncommon order for the sake of convenience and brevity. First of all, we\nshall take 1395/KOL/2025 (assessee's appeal) A.Y. 2015-16 in case of\nBalmukund Sponge and Iron

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.\n3. Since these appeals relate to the related companies and\nissues\ninvolved are mostly common, therefore these are being decided by this\ncommon order for the sake of convenience and brevity. First of all, we\nshall take 1395/KOL/2025 (assessee's appeal) A.Y. 2015-16 in case of\nBalmukund Sponge and Iron

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.\n3. Since these appeals relate to the related companies and issues\ninvolved are mostly common, therefore these are being decided by this\ncommon order for the sake of convenience and brevity. First of all, we\nshall take 1395/KOL/2025 (assessee's appeal) A.Y. 2015-16 in case of\nBalmukund Sponge and Iron

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.\n3. Since these appeals relate to the related companies and issues\ninvolved are mostly common, therefore these are being decided by this\ncommon order for the sake of convenience and brevity. First of all, we\nshall take 1395/KOL/2025 (assessee's appeal) A.Y. 2015-16 in case of\nBalmukund Sponge and Iron

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.\n3. Since these appeals relate to the related companies and issues\ninvolved are mostly common, therefore these are being decided by this\ncommon order for the sake of convenience and brevity. First of all, we\nshall take 1395/KOL/2025 (assessee's appeal) A.Y. 2015-16 in case of\nBalmukund Sponge and Iron

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.\n3. Since these appeals relate to the related companies and issues\ninvolved are mostly common, therefore these are being decided by this\ncommon order for the sake of convenience and brevity. First of all, we\nshall take 1395/KOL/2025 (assessee's appeal) A.Y. 2015-16 in case of\nBalmukund Sponge and Iron

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]

condone the delay and for that we refer to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC). Assessment Year 2009-10 3. The main grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld. Pr. CIT in exercising his revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. Brief facts of the case are that

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]

condone the delay and for that we refer to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC). Assessment Year 2009-10 3. The main grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld. Pr. CIT in exercising his revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. Brief facts of the case are that

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]

condone the delay and for that we refer to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC). Assessment Year 2009-10 3. The main grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld. Pr. CIT in exercising his revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. Brief facts of the case are that

KABRA BROTHERS,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 35, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. Though the assessee has preferred five grounds of appeal, the main ground of appeal is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the addition of Rs.19,40,23,375/- under the head “bogus 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)

condone the delay and admit these appeals for hearing. 3. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated in ITA No.1134/Kol/2018 for A.Y. 2010-11, have been

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)

condone the delay and admit these appeals for hearing. 3. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated in ITA No.1134/Kol/2018 for A.Y. 2010-11, have been

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)

condone the delay and admit these appeals for hearing. 3. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated in ITA No.1134/Kol/2018 for A.Y. 2010-11, have been