ALISHAN STEELS PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

69C or section 69D." The intention of the legislature in introducing the amendment, as stated in the explanatory note, is to avoid unnecessary litigation and to expressly provide that no set off of any loss shall be allowable in respect of income under section 68. Therefore, it has to be held that, as on the relevant date of the assessment

APL METALS LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(3), KOLKATA

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm I.T.A. No.297/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2018-19 Apl Metals Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, National C/O, Subash Agarwal & Faceless Assessment Centre, Associates, Advocates, Siddha Delhi. Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata- 700069. (Pan: Aacca4246P) (Appellant) (Respondent)

69C r.w. section 115BBE were not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. For that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the impugned addition on account of alleged unsubstantiated purchases was chargeable to tax under the head "Business Income" instead of "Income from other sources". 5. For that the A.O. was not justified

YOGESH TRANSPORT PVT LTD,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

69C) and the related addition\nof 88% of lorry expenses as income are upheld due to the appellant's failure to\nprovide credible evidence, including valid> bills, vouchers, and proof of genuine\ntransportation expenses. The disallowance of Iprry expenses due to non-\ndeduction of TDS under Section 1940 is also upheld, as the appellant failed to\nproduce declarations from transporters

DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S DOTEX MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objections are also dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year)." 27. It is established principle of interpretation of statutes, that the Parliament is presumed to be not extravagant, in using the words, and therefore, every word used

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)

69C of the Act. SLP dismissed” 17. We note that in any event if the assessing officer wants to make addition on account of bogus purchases, he may make addition only percentage based on gross profit of preceding years, for that assessee relied on the judgment of the Hon`ble Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT v. Subarna

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)

69C of the Act. SLP dismissed” 17. We note that in any event if the assessing officer wants to make addition on account of bogus purchases, he may make addition only percentage based on gross profit of preceding years, for that assessee relied on the judgment of the Hon`ble Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT v. Subarna

PURPLE SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,SURAT, GUJRAT vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

69C of the Act. Reference was further made to the following written submission filed on 05.06.2024: “The information received from reliable is that M/s. Sancheti Diamonds Private Limited is a private company having account No. 034805003043 with Mumbai Opera House branch having PAN AALCS2336M. The account was opened on 25.01.2008. Date of incorporation 01.10.2007. The account has triggered for high

PURPLE SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,SURAT, GUJRAT vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

69C of the Act. Reference was further made to the following written submission filed on 05.06.2024: “The information received from reliable is that M/s. Sancheti Diamonds Private Limited is a private company having account No. 034805003043 with Mumbai Opera House branch having PAN AALCS2336M. The account was opened on 25.01.2008. Date of incorporation 01.10.2007. The account has triggered for high

PURPLE SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,SURAT, GUJRAT vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

69C of the Act. Reference was further made to the following written submission filed on 05.06.2024: “The information received from reliable is that M/s. Sancheti Diamonds Private Limited is a private company having account No. 034805003043 with Mumbai Opera House branch having PAN AALCS2336M. The account was opened on 25.01.2008. Date of incorporation 01.10.2007. The account has triggered for high

M/S SKIPPER LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR. 3(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz)& Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 153A of the act 3 AY: 2013-14 M/s Skipper Ltd. on 31.12.2017 thereby assessing the income at Rs. 9,96,67,709/-. Thereafter the assessee moved a rectification petition dated 28.02.2018 requesting the AO that unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 9,82,55,803/- has not been allowed set off from the income assessed and the AO thereafter passed

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S G.K.ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross objection of the different assessees are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar] "ी संजय गग" "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम"

depreciation allowance or any other allowance as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year); A bare reading of the foregoing provision suggests that if the assessing officer has the reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. GAURAV ROSE REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross objection of the different assessees are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar] "ी संजय गग" "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम"

depreciation allowance or any other allowance as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year); A bare reading of the foregoing provision suggests that if the assessing officer has the reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment

ITO, KOLKATA vs. AJIT KUMAR MINDA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and cross objections of the\nassessee are dismissed

69C of the Act as unexplained expenditure.\n4. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee preferred appeal before\nthe 1d. CIT(A) where the appeal of the assessee was allowed by the ld.\nCIT(A) by setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer observing as\nfollows:\n\"7. DECISION:\n7.1 Additional Ground Nos.1 and 2 relate to initiation

RAGHVENDRA PRATAP SINGH,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 28, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act as discussed in para 7 at page 8 Disallowance of labour Rs. 66,89,134/- charges, supervision charges, tyres charges and repairs and maintenance charges u/s 40(a)(ia) in para 8 at page 8-9 above Disallowance of Rs. 2,80,400/- depreciation on dumpers as discussed in para 9 at page

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KAJARIA YARNS & TWINES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am]

depreciation and inter alia making two additions amounting to Rs.79,00,418/- & Rs.2,01,17,791/-. The amount of Rs.79,00,418/- was added by the AO on the ground that 1435MT of raw jute was acquired / purchased by the assessee from undisclosed sources of income. The amount of Rs.2,01,17,791/- was added by AO similarly

ITO, WARD - 3(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BISCO METAL & POWER PVT. LTD., JHARKHAND

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: : Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

69C of the Act, the onus is on the AO to show that the assessee has actually incurred expenditure and that has remained unexplained. In the present case, we find that the AO added such amount on mere presumption without any basis and it is not permissible under law, therefore, we find no infirmity in the order

SHRI UDIT AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. DCIT(IT)-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed accordingly

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2014-15 Shri Udit Agarwal V/S. Dcit (It)-2(1), 110, 3, Madan Mohan Burman Shanti Pally, Kolkata- Street, Kolkataa-007 107 [Pan No.Ahupa 0424 B] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 03-12-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 26-12-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22,Kolkata’S Order Dated 10.05.2017 Passed In Case No.71/Cit(A)/22/Kol/14-15/16-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Learned Representatives. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Ground Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Treating Its Long Term Capital Gains (Ltcg) Of ₹64,99,391/- To Be Unexplained Cash Credits U/S 68 Of The Act. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reads As Under:- ”06. Decision: 1. I Have Carefully Considered The Action Of The Ld. Ao In Treating The Amount Of Rs.67,24,391/- Being Claimed By The Appellant To Be Proceeds Of Shares Sold To Be Ltcg & Claimed As Exempt. The Findings Of The Ld. Ao Are Based On The Information Being Supplied By The Investigation Wing Of The Department At Kolkata. I Have Also Carefully Examined The Submissions Of The Appellant, Wherein

Depreciation 0.82 0.54 0.54 0.48 0.62 Profit before tax 0.03 0.22 0.17 0.29 PBT(Post Extra-odd items) 0.33 0.22 0.17 0.29 0.30 Tax -0.02 -0.03 0.08 0.09 0.32 Reported net profit 0.05 0.25 0.10 0.20 0.32 Total value addition 3.08 3.50 3.11 2.35 0.10 0.10 0.23 1.99 Per share data (annualized) Shares in issue (lakhs

SRI VENKATESH IRON AND ALLOYS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO. WARD -3(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 133(6) of the Act. We note that the assessee has filed all the evidences qua the purchases including the invoices, payment details and other bills and vouchers. The Learned AO has only made addition on the ground that the suppliers were non-filers of the returns of income and the purchases were not confirmed. We note that even