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

Section 292C of the Act, the presumption is to be drawn in respect of WhatsApp transactions in the hands of the person from whose possession or control the books of accounts/ documents, etc. are found. Even the presumption u/s 292C of the Act is rebuttable when the assessee proved 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

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

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

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

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

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 worth Rs.72,84,304/-. The following were the relevant observations of the AO in this regard :- A.Y.2010-11 “However as per information received from the sales tax department communicated by the DGIT ( Inv.\). Mumbai as mentioned earlier, the assessee company has inflated its purchase by procuring false purchase bills from the concern called Divya Enterprise and Kamal Traders during

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

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

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

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

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 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

ACIT, CIRCLE-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result Ground no. 1 & 3 of the revenue are allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd…….............................................................……………………..Appellant 27, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aaecs 0765 R] Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-12 Kolkata……...............................…….…..Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 80-IA(13) does not apply. Explanation to section 80- IA(13) merely distinguishes between a developer and works contractor. It clarifies that a works contractor shall not be included in the category of 'developer' u/s 80-1A. Thus, the Explanation clearly does not apply to O&M projects. Hence, deduction of Rs. 35,16,9411- claimed

ACIT, CIRCLE-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result Ground no. 1 & 3 of the revenue are allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd…….............................................................……………………..Appellant 27, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aaecs 0765 R] Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-12 Kolkata……...............................…….…..Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 80-IA(13) does not apply. Explanation to section 80- IA(13) merely distinguishes between a developer and works contractor. It clarifies that a works contractor shall not be included in the category of 'developer' u/s 80-1A. Thus, the Explanation clearly does not apply to O&M projects. Hence, deduction of Rs. 35,16,9411- claimed

M/S. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result Ground no. 1 & 3 of the revenue are allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd…….............................................................……………………..Appellant 27, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aaecs 0765 R] Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-12 Kolkata……...............................…….…..Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 80-IA(13) does not apply. Explanation to section 80- IA(13) merely distinguishes between a developer and works contractor. It clarifies that a works contractor shall not be included in the category of 'developer' u/s 80-1A. Thus, the Explanation clearly does not apply to O&M projects. Hence, deduction of Rs. 35,16,9411- claimed

M/S. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result Ground no. 1 & 3 of the revenue are allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd…….............................................................……………………..Appellant 27, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aaecs 0765 R] Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-12 Kolkata……...............................…….…..Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 80-IA(13) does not apply. Explanation to section 80- IA(13) merely distinguishes between a developer and works contractor. It clarifies that a works contractor shall not be included in the category of 'developer' u/s 80-1A. Thus, the Explanation clearly does not apply to O&M projects. Hence, deduction of Rs. 35,16,9411- claimed

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MAGNETIC NIRYAT PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 347/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,......Appellant Central Circle-2(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 4Th Floor, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700107 -Vs.- M/S. Magnetic Niryat Pvt. Limited,............Respondent 9, Vivekanand Road, Kolkata-700007 [Pan:Aagcm4047E] Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Sudipta Guha, Cit (Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

purchases of the assessee are to be added in an ex-parte assessment on an estimate basis or element of income quantified by the ld. CIT(Appeals) at 5% is to be restricted. 3. Brief facts of the case are that in response to the notice of hearing, no one has come present on behalf of the assessee. 4. With

JIGNESH DESAI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-35(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2205/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Jignesh Desai , -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward-35(2) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Afepd 5066 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Miraj D.Shah, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri Vijyendra Kumar, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 14.06.2017. Order

section 69C In respect of bogus purchases - Whether on facts, Impugned addition made by Assessing Officer was to be confirmed - Held, yes [para 8] [In favour of revenue Overall from the facts and -circumstances emanating in the case, I find myself agreeable with the findings of the Ld AO, and therefore sustain the action of addition of Rs.3