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 ]

67,888/- iv) Kamal Traders : Rs.34,03,534/- In all the bogus purchases for this year was Rs.72,84,304/-. 5. The AO while concluding the assessment u/s 147 of the Act in his order dated 30.03.2015 for both the assessment years issued notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act calling upon the assessee to furnish several

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

bogus. As pointed out by Mr. Rai, learned senior standing\ncounsel, the investigation report is general in nature not\nassessee specific. Therefore, we are required to see as to\nwhether non-furnishing of the report which according to the\nrevenue is available in the public domain would vitiate the\nproceedings on the ground that the assessee was put to\nprejudice

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

bogus. As pointed out by Mr. Rai, learned senior standing\ncounsel, the investigation report is general in nature not\nassessee specific. Therefore, we are required to see as to\nwhether non-furnishing of the report which according to the\nrevenue is available in the public domain would vitiate the\nproceedings on the ground that the assessee was put to\nprejudice

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

bogus. As pointed out by Mr. Rai, learned senior standing\ncounsel, the investigation report is general in nature not\nassessee specific. Therefore, we are required to see as to\nwhether non-furnishing of the report which according to the\nrevenue is available in the public domain would vitiate the\nproceedings on the ground that the assessee was put to\nprejudice

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

bogus. As pointed out by Mr. Rai, learned senior standing\ncounsel, the investigation report is general in nature not\nassessee specific. Therefore, we are required to see as to\nwhether non-furnishing of the report which according to the\nrevenue is available in the public domain would vitiate the\nproceedings on the ground that the assessee was put to\nprejudice

D.C.I.T., CC - 3(1),, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

bogus. As pointed out by Mr. Rai, learned senior standing\ncounsel, the investigation report is general in nature not\nassessee specific. Therefore, we are required to see as to\nwhether non-furnishing of the report which according to the\nrevenue is available in the public domain would vitiate the\nproceedings on the ground that the assessee was put to\nprejudice

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3.1, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

bogus. As pointed out by Mr. Rai, learned senior standing\ncounsel, the investigation report is general in nature not\nassessee specific. Therefore, we are required to see as to\nwhether non-furnishing of the report which according to the\nrevenue is available in the public domain would vitiate the\nproceedings on the ground that the assessee was put to\nprejudice

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

bogus. As pointed out by Mr. Rai, learned senior standing\ncounsel, the investigation report is general in nature not\nassessee specific. Therefore, we are required to see as to\nwhether non-furnishing of the report which according to the\nrevenue is available in the public domain would vitiate the\nproceedings on the ground that the assessee was put to\nprejudice

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

bogus. As pointed out by Mr. Rai, learned senior standing\ncounsel, the investigation report is general in nature not\nassessee specific. Therefore, we are required to see as to\nwhether non-furnishing of the report which according to the\nrevenue is available in the public domain would vitiate the\nproceedings on the ground that the assessee was put to\nprejudice

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1),, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

bogus. As pointed out by Mr. Rai, learned senior standing\ncounsel, the investigation report is general in nature not\nassessee specific. Therefore, we are required to see as to\nwhether non-furnishing of the report which according to the\nrevenue is available in the public domain would vitiate the\nproceedings on the ground that the assessee was put to\nprejudice

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

bogus. As pointed out by Mr. Rai, learned senior standing\ncounsel, the investigation report is general in nature not\nassessee specific. Therefore, we are required to see as to\nwhether non-furnishing of the report which according to the\nrevenue is available in the public domain would vitiate the\nproceedings on the ground that the assessee was put to\nprejudice

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

bogus. As pointed out by Mr. Rai, learned senior standing\ncounsel, the investigation report is general in nature not\nassessee specific. Therefore, we are required to see as to\nwhether non-furnishing of the report which according to the\nrevenue is available in the public domain would vitiate the\nproceedings on the ground that the assessee was put to\nprejudice

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

bogus. As pointed out by Mr. Rai, learned senior standing\ncounsel, the investigation report is general in nature not\nassessee specific. Therefore, we are required to see as to\nwhether non-furnishing of the report which according to the\nrevenue is available in the public domain would vitiate the\nproceedings on the ground that the assessee was put to\nprejudice

V2 RETAIL LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

67,300/- on account of bogus purchases and determined the total loss of the assessee-company at Rs.18,26,41,949/- in the assessment completed under section

ITO WD 48(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI PUSPAL KUMAR DAS, HOWRAH

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, A.M. & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, J.M.)

bogus liabilities. He went on to hold that - "Application of Section 41(1) presupposes genuineness of allowed in ea1ier years. The fact that the assessee has claimed the said sum as expenditures in earlier years cannot be denied. As the liability ceased to exist as on 31.03.2007, as found during the proceeding, the sum of Rs.16,67,546/- is added