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

10 of the assessment order. Further, it is observed that in case the purchases are excluded from the trading account, the corresponding sales would also have to be excluded. Hence, this exercise would reduce the income returned by the assessee. Therefore, it can be inferred that percentage disallowance of the purchases would amount to double Balmukund Lease Fin Private Limited

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

10 of the assessment order. Further, it is observed that in case the purchases are excluded from the trading account, the corresponding sales would also have to be excluded. Hence, this exercise would reduce the income returned by the assessee. Therefore, it can be inferred that percentage disallowance of the purchases would amount to double Balmukund Lease Fin Private Limited

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

10 of the assessment order. Further, it is observed that in case the purchases are excluded from the trading account, the corresponding sales would also have to be excluded. Hence, this exercise would reduce the income returned by the assessee. Therefore, it can be inferred that percentage disallowance of the purchases would amount to double Balmukund Lease Fin Private Limited

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

10 of the assessment order. Further, it is observed that in case the purchases are excluded from the trading account, the corresponding sales would also have to be excluded. Hence, this exercise would reduce the income returned by the assessee. Therefore, it can be inferred that percentage disallowance of the purchases would amount to double Balmukund Lease Fin Private Limited

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

10 of the assessment order. Further, it is observed that in case the purchases are excluded from the trading account, the corresponding sales would also have to be excluded. Hence, this exercise would reduce the income returned by the assessee. Therefore, it can be inferred that percentage disallowance of the purchases would amount to double Balmukund Lease Fin Private Limited

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

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

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

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

D.C.I.T., CC - 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

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

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

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, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1),, 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, 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

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

ACIT, CIRCLE - 34, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. BHAWARLAL ALOKE KUMAR , KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2014-15 Acit, Cicle-34, V/S. Bhawarlal Aloke Kumar Aayakar Poorva, 7Th P-12, New Howrah Bridge Approach Road, 4Th Floor, Floor, 110, Shantipally, Kolkatka-107 Kolkta-700001 [Pan No.Aadfb 0620 N] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant None ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 04-02-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 03-05-2019 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)-10, Kolkata’S Order Dated 23.01.2018 Passed In Case No.224/Cit(A)-10/C-34/14-15/16-17/Kol, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Case Called Twice. None Appears At The Assessee’S Behest Despite The Registry Having Sent An Rpad Notice. It Is Accordingly Proceeded Ex Parte. 2. Revenue’S Sole Substantive Grievance Raised In The Instant Appeal Seeks To Challenge Correctness Of Cit(A)’S Action Partly Upholding Assessing Officer’S Findings Disallowing Assessee’S Purchase(S) Of ₹3,22,28,000/- Only To The Extent Of 15% Vide Impugned Following Detailed Discussion:- “06. Findings &. Decision:

Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Method of accounting - Estimation of Profits [Bogus purchases] - Assessment year 2006-07 - Assessee was engaged in ,business of trading in steel on wholesale basis - Assessing Officer having found that some of alleged suppliers of steel to assessee had not supplied steel to assessee but had only provided sale bills, held that purchases