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

11. The issue raised in ground nos.1, 2 and 5 are general in nature 12. The issue raised in ground no.3 & 4 is against the restriction of addition to ₹1,47,000/- by the ld. CIT (A) as made by the ld. AO on the basis of WhatsApp chats. 12.1. The issue raised in this appeal is similar to ground

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

11. The issue raised in ground nos.1, 2 and 5 are general in nature 12. The issue raised in ground no.3 & 4 is against the restriction of addition to ₹1,47,000/- by the ld. CIT (A) as made by the ld. AO on the basis of WhatsApp chats. 12.1. The issue raised in this appeal is similar to ground

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

11. The issue raised in ground nos.1, 2 and 5 are general in nature 12. The issue raised in ground no.3 & 4 is against the restriction of addition to ₹1,47,000/- by the ld. CIT (A) as made by the ld. AO on the basis of WhatsApp chats. 12.1. The issue raised in this appeal is similar to ground

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

11. The issue raised in ground nos.1, 2 and 5 are general in nature 12. The issue raised in ground no.3 & 4 is against the restriction of addition to ₹1,47,000/- by the ld. CIT (A) as made by the ld. AO on the basis of WhatsApp chats. 12.1. The issue raised in this appeal is similar to ground

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALAJEE MINI STEELS & REROLLING PRIVATE LIMITED , PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am\Nand\Nshripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm\Nita Nos.1688 To 1691/Kol/2025\N(Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2018-19)\Nita No. 1725/Kol/2025\N(Assessment Year: 2016-17)\Ndcit, Central Circle 4(3)\Nbalajee Mini Steels & Rerolling\Naaykar Bhawan Poorva, 110,\Nprivate Limited\Nshantipally, Kolkata-700107,\N603, Shantikunj Apartment,\Nkolkata\Nphulwanipatna, G.P.O.800001,\Nvs.\N(Appellant)\Npatna\N(Respondent)\Npan No. Aabcb7265J\Nassessee By\N:\Nshri Manish Rastogi, Ar\Nrevenue By\N:\Ns/Shri Praveen Kishore &\Npradeep Dungdung, Drs\Ndate Of Hearing:\N01.12.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N15.12.2025\Norder\Nper Rajesh Kumar, Am:\Nthese Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Kolkata-27 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)"] Dated 13.04.2025 For The Ays 2015-16 To 2018-19.\Nas The Facts & Issues In All The Appeals Of Revenue Are Exactly Identical, Hence, For The Sake Of Brevity, We Take Ita No. 1688/Kol/2025 For A.Y. 2015-16 & Decide The Issue Accordingly.\Nα.Υ. 2015-16\Npage 2\Nita Nos.1688 To 1691/Kol/2025&1725/Kol/2025\Nbalajee Mini Steels & Rerolling Private Limited; Ays 2015-16 To 2018-19\Nita No. 1688/Kol/2025\N3.\Nthe Only Issue Raised By The Revenue Is Against The Deletion Of Addition By The Id. Cit (A) Of ₹1,07,03,817/- As Made By The Id. Ao On Account Of Suppression Of Income In Respect Of Bogus Purchases.\N3.

section 68 of the Act\nIn the firat appellate stage the assessee submitted ledger account copy,\nconfirmation of accounts and also furnished their Sales Tax registration number\nThe Commissioner (Appeals) held that these transactions were trading\ntransactions and not financial transactions, as such, cannot be added under\nsection 68 of the Act\nBefore the Commissioner (Appeals) it as submitted

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALAJEE MINI STEELS & REROLLING PRIVATE LIMITED , PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am\Nand\Nshripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm\Nita Nos.1688 To 1691/Kol/2025\N(Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2018-19)\Nita No. 1725/Kol/2025\N(Assessment Year: 2016-17)\Ndcit, Central Circle 4(3)\Nbalajee Mini Steels & Rerolling\Naaykar Bhawan Poorva, 110,\Nprivate Limited\Nshantipally, Kolkata-700107,\N603, Shantikunj Apartment,\Nkolkata\Nphulwanipatna, G.P.O.800001,\N(Appellant)\Nvs.\Npatna\N(Respondent)\Npan No. Aabcb7265J\Nassessee By : Shri Manish Rastogi, Ar\Nrevenue By : S/Shri Praveen Kishore &\Npradeep Dungdung, Drs\Ndate Of Hearing: 01.12.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 15.12.2025\Norder\Nper Rajesh Kumar, Am:\Nthese Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Orders Of\Nthe Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Kolkata-27 (Hereinafter\Nreferred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)"] Dated 13.04.2025 For The Ays 2015-16\Nto 2018-19.\Nas The Facts & Issues In All The Appeals Of Revenue Are Exactly\Nidentical, Hence, For The Sake Of Brevity, We Take Ita No.\N1688/Kol/2025 For A.Y. 2015-16 & Decide The Issue Accordingly.\Nα.Υ. 2015-16\Npage 2\Nita Nos.1688 To 1691/Kol/2025&1725/Kol/2025\Nbalajee Mini Steels & Rerolling Private Limited; Ays 2015-16 To 2018-19\Nita No. 1688/Kol/2025\N3.\Nthe Only Issue Raised By The Revenue Is Against The Deletion Of\Naddition By The Id. Cit (A) Of ₹1,07,03,817/- As Made By The Id. Ao\Non Account Of Suppression Of Income In Respect Of Bogus Purchases.\N3.

section 68 of the Act\nIn the firat appellate stage the assessee submitted ledger account copy,\nconfirmation of accounts and also furnished their Sales Tax registration number\nThe Commissioner (Appeals) held that these transactions were trading\ntransactions and not financial transactions, as such, cannot be added under\nsection 68 of the Act\nBefore the Commissioner (Appeals) it as submitted

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. BALAJEE MINI STEELS & REROLLING PRIVATE LIMITED , PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am\Nand\Nshripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm\Nita Nos.1688 To 1691/Kol/2025\N(Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2018-19)\Nita No. 1725/Kol/2025\N(Assessment Year: 2016-17)\Ndcit, Central Circle 4(3)\Nbalajee Mini Steels & Rerolling\Naaykar Bhawan Poorva, 110,\Nprivate Limited\Nshantipally, Kolkata-700107,\N603, Shantikunj Apartment,\Nkolkata\Nvs.\Nphulwanipatna, G.P.O.800001,\N(Appellant)\Npatna\N(Respondent)\Npan No. Aabcb7265J\Nassessee By\Nshri Manish Rastogi, Ar\Nrevenue By\Ns/Shri Praveen Kishore &\Npradeep Dungdung, Drs\Ndate Of Hearing: 01.12.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 15.12.2025\Norder\Nper Rajesh Kumar, Am:\Nthese Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Orders Of\Nthe Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Kolkata-27 (Hereinafter\Nreferred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)"] Dated 13.04.2025 For The Ays 2015-16\Nto 2018-19.\Nas The Facts & Issues In All The Appeals Of Revenue Are Exactly\Nidentical, Hence, For The Sake Of Brevity, We Take Ita No.\N1688/Kol/2025 For A.Y. 2015-16 & Decide The Issue Accordingly.\Nα.Υ. 2015-16\Npage 2\Nita Nos.1688 To 1691/Kol/2025&1725/Kol/2025\Nbalajee Mini Steels & Rerolling Private Limited; Ays 2015-16 To 2018-19\Nita No. 1688/Kol/2025\N3.\Nthe Only Issue Raised By The Revenue Is Against The Deletion Of\Naddition By The Id. Cit (A) Of ₹1,07,03,817/- As Made By The Id. Ao\Non Account Of Suppression Of Income In Respect Of Bogus Purchases.\N3.

section 68 of the Act\nIn the firat appellate stage the assessee submitted ledger account copy,\nconfirmation of accounts and also furnished their Sales Tax registration number\nThe Commissioner (Appeals) held that these transactions were trading\ntransactions and not financial transactions, as such, cannot be added under\nsection 68 of the Act\nBefore the Commissioner (Appeals) it as submitted

OM FORGING & ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE PR. CIT-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

bogus purchases could not be made under section 69C of the Act and decided to make addition of Rs.2,38,633 for possible inflation of purchases. 12. The estimated addition was made by him after making inquiry and after considering the entire facts of the case. Thus the Assessing Officer's view was one of the legal view and therefore

M/S. SAROJ EMBRODS PVT. LTD. ,HOOGHLY vs. DCIT, C.C-3(4), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoysarma]

section 147 of the Act. The legal ground raised by the assessee is allowed. 12. Issue raised in ground no. 2,3& 4 are not merit and against the order of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition as made by AO. 13. Facts in brief are that the assessee made purchases from these concerns during the year which was duly

SAROJ EMBRODS PRIVATE LIMITED. ,HOOGHLY vs. DCIT,C.C-3(4), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoysarma]

section 147 of the Act. The legal ground raised by the assessee is allowed. 12. Issue raised in ground no. 2,3& 4 are not merit and against the order of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition as made by AO. 13. Facts in brief are that the assessee made purchases from these concerns during the year which was duly

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

Section 292C of the\nAct, the presumption is to be drawn in respect of WhatsApp\ntransactions in the hands of the person from whose possession or\ncontrol the books of accounts/ documents, etc. are found. Even the\npresumption u/s 292C of the Act is rebuttable when the assessee\nproved that he has not done any such transactions even in respect

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Section 292C of the\nAct, the presumption is to be drawn in respect of WhatsApp\ntransactions in the hands of the person from whose possession or\ncontrol the books of accounts/ documents, etc. are found. Even the\npresumption u/s 292C of the Act is rebuttable when the assessee\nproved that he has not done any such transactions even in respect

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Section 292C of the\nAct, the presumption is to be drawn in respect of WhatsApp\ntransactions in the hands of the person from whose possession or\ncontrol the books of accounts/ documents, etc. are found. Even the\npresumption u/s 292C of the Act is rebuttable when the assessee\nproved that he has not done any such transactions even in respect

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Section 292C of the\nAct, the presumption is to be drawn in respect of WhatsApp\ntransactions in the hands of the person from whose possession or\ncontrol the books of accounts/ documents, etc. are found. Even the\npresumption u/s 292C of the Act is rebuttable when the assessee\nproved that he has not done any such transactions even in respect

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Section 292C of the\nAct, the presumption is to be drawn in respect of WhatsApp\ntransactions in the hands of the person from whose possession or\ncontrol the books of accounts/ documents, etc. are found. Even the\npresumption u/s 292C of the Act is rebuttable when the assessee\nproved that he has not done any such transactions even in respect

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Section 292C of the\nAct, the presumption is to be drawn in respect of WhatsApp\ntransactions in the hands of the person from whose possession or\ncontrol the books of accounts/ documents, etc. are found. Even the\npresumption u/s 292C of the Act is rebuttable when the assessee\nproved that he has not done any such transactions even in respect

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Section 292C of the\nAct, the presumption is to be drawn in respect of WhatsApp\ntransactions in the hands of the person from whose possession or\ncontrol the books of accounts/ documents, etc. are found. Even the\npresumption u/s 292C of the Act is rebuttable when the assessee\nproved that he has not done any such transactions even in respect