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

260/- and the remaining addition of ₹59,20,740/- was deleted. 6.5. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the addition was made only on the basis of Whatsapp Chats between the director of Shri Abhishek Kanodia and employee of the company. We note that apart from the Whatsapp Chat there

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

260/- and the remaining addition of ₹59,20,740/- was deleted. 6.5. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the addition was made only on the basis of Whatsapp Chats between the director of Shri Abhishek Kanodia and employee of the company. We note that apart from the Whatsapp Chat there

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

260/- and the remaining addition of ₹59,20,740/- was deleted. 6.5. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the addition was made only on the basis of Whatsapp Chats between the director of Shri Abhishek Kanodia and employee of the company. We note that apart from the Whatsapp Chat there

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

260/-\nand the remaining addition of ₹59,20,740/- was deleted.\n6. 5. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials\navailable on record, we find that the addition was made only on the\nbasis of Whatsapp Chats between the director of Shri Abhishek Kanodia\nand employee of the company. We note that apart from the Whatsapp\nChat there

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

260/-\nand the remaining addition of ₹59,20,740/- was deleted.\n6. 5. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials\navailable on record, we find that the addition was made only on the\nbasis of Whatsapp Chats between the director of Shri Abhishek Kanodia\nand employee of the company. We note that apart from the Whatsapp\nChat there

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

260/-\nand the remaining addition of ₹59,20,740/- was deleted.\n6. 5. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials\navailable on record, we find that the addition was made only on the\nbasis of Whatsapp Chats between the director of Shri Abhishek Kanodia\nand employee of the company. We note that apart from the Whatsapp\nChat there

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

260/-\nand the remaining addition of ₹59,20,740/- was deleted.\n6. 5. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials\navailable on record, we find that the addition was made only on the\nbasis of Whatsapp Chats between the director of Shri Abhishek Kanodia\nand employee of the company. We note that apart from the Whatsapp\nChat there

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

260/-\nand the remaining addition of ₹59,20,740/- was deleted.\n6. 5. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials\navailable on record, we find that the addition was made only on the\nbasis of Whatsapp Chats between the director of Shri Abhishek Kanodia\nand employee of the company. We note that apart from the Whatsapp\nChat there

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

260/-\nand the remaining addition of ₹59,20,740/- was deleted.\n6. 5. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials\navailable on record, we find that the addition was made only on the\nbasis of Whatsapp Chats between the director of Shri Abhishek Kanodia\nand employee of the company. We note that apart from the Whatsapp\nChat there

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

260/-\nand the remaining addition of ₹59,20,740/- was deleted.\n6. 5. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials\navailable on record, we find that the addition was made only on the\nbasis of Whatsapp Chats between the director of Shri Abhishek Kanodia\nand employee of the company. We note that apart from the Whatsapp\nChat there

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

260/-\nand the remaining addition of ₹59,20,740/- was deleted.\n6. 5. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials\navailable on record, we find that the addition was made only on the\nbasis of Whatsapp Chats between the director of Shri Abhishek Kanodia\nand employee of the company. We note that apart from the Whatsapp\nChat there

S.K. DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD., KOLKATA,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 9(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10

section 263 of the Act was passed on 22.03.2015, whereby the addition of ₹38,20,000/- was made on account of bogus purchases and the total income was assessed at ₹1,19,43,260

IDEAL UNEMPLOYED ENGINEERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,COOCHBIHAR vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2, JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2010-11

260/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is neither tenable in law nor in facts. 4. For that imposition of penalty at 200% is without basis, arbitrary and bad in law.” 3. Briefly stated facts are that assessee is a co-operative society and engaged in the business of contracting activity. During the course of assessment proceeding, Assessing Officer

DCIT, CIRCLE - 48, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SANJAY JAISWAL, HOWRAH

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is allowed , appeals of the assessee and revenue are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: : Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 42,81,239/-. The assessee contested the fresh assessment before the Learned CITA both on limitation as well as on merits. ITA Nos.1649/K/2010, CO No. 162/K/2010 2 & ITA No. 1676/K/2010 Sanjay Jaiswal-A-AM The preliminary objection raised by the assessee on limitation before the Learned CIT(A) was subjected to remand proceedings

NAVIN KUMAR KAJARIA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 35, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

purchase of shares were accepted by the ld AO in earlier years, the same could not be treated as bogus simply on the basis of some reports of the Investigation Wing and/or the orders of SEBI and/or the statements of third parties. In support of the aforesaid submissions, the ld AR, in addition to the aforesaid judgements, has referred

SMT. SUSHILA DEVI KAJARIA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 36, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

purchase of shares were accepted by the ld AO in earlier years, the same could not be treated as bogus simply on the basis of some reports of the Investigation Wing and/or the orders of SEBI and/or the statements of third parties. In support of the aforesaid submissions, the ld AR, in addition to the aforesaid judgements, has referred

SMT. MAITREYEE DAS,PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. I.TO WD - 1,HALDIA, HALDIA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No.780/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10

bogus purchase and accordingly is added back to the total income. “ 6. Before CIT(A) the assessee reiterated the submissions that were made before the AO. CIT(A) however confirmed the order of AO by observing as follows :- “3.2. I have carefully considered the submission made. The appellant has stated that if there is excess debit of purchase, closing stock

HARI RAM AGARWAL ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 22(4) , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey & Shri M. Balaganeshi.T.A. No.2363/Kol/2018 (Assessment Year 2014-15) Hari Ram Agarwal Ito, Ward-22(4), Kolkata. -Vs- [Pan :Acdpa 1946 N]

section 143(1) of the Act accepting the purchase of shares. The ld AR also submitted that even in the impugned assessment order the purchase of shares by the assessee was not held to be bogus. The ld AR submitted that the evidences and documents furnished by the assessee were neither found to be false nor fabricated