M/S. RAIGANJ R.C.C. SPUN PIPE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2010-11

292C of the Income Tax Act 1961. So, the assessee's explanation is not acceptable here for assessee's own folly. It is already stated that the undersigned appreciated the assessee for showing profit @ 21% which is ten fold more than the normal profit(2.2%) as returned by the assessee. The undersigned being judicious considered the excess profit within disclosure

ITO, WARD - 12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. HARSHWARDHAN GEMS P. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of revenue and that of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

section 292C of the Act treated the diaries found as belonging to assessee and recomputed the unaccounted purchases after taking remand report from the AO at Rs.6,76,562/- and also treated the same as sales and thereby worked out profit rate @ 13.39% and estimated the profit at Rs.90,591/- by observing in para 4.10, 4.11, 4.12 and para

HARSHWARDHAN GEMS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of revenue and that of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

section 292C of the Act treated the diaries found as belonging to assessee and recomputed the unaccounted purchases after taking remand report from the AO at Rs.6,76,562/- and also treated the same as sales and thereby worked out profit rate @ 13.39% and estimated the profit at Rs.90,591/- by observing in para 4.10, 4.11, 4.12 and para

M/S SALARPURIA PROPERTIES PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CC-3(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2005-06 Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd., C/O, M/S. Salarpuria Income-Tax, Circle- 1, Jajodia & Co., 3Rd Floor, 7, Vs. Kolkata. Chittaranjan Avenue, Kolkata-700072. (Pan: Aagcs8492P) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Commissioner Of Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle- Ltd., 3(2), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.3/Kol/2023 In Ita No.736/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Ltd., Income-Tax, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata. (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

disallowances against which assessee had preferred an appeal before the Ld. ClT(A)-I/Kolkata, who allowed it. 6.3. Later, on 29.03.2012, the case of the assessee was re-opened u/s 147 and the reasons to belive recorded for initiating proceedings u/s 147 are as below: "In continuation of a search & seizure operation in the case of Sri P. Dayananda

D.C.I.T., CC - 3(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SALARPURIA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2005-06 Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd., C/O, M/S. Salarpuria Income-Tax, Circle- 1, Jajodia & Co., 3Rd Floor, 7, Vs. Kolkata. Chittaranjan Avenue, Kolkata-700072. (Pan: Aagcs8492P) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Commissioner Of Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle- Ltd., 3(2), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.3/Kol/2023 In Ita No.736/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Ltd., Income-Tax, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata. (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

disallowances against which assessee had preferred an appeal before the Ld. ClT(A)-I/Kolkata, who allowed it. 6.3. Later, on 29.03.2012, the case of the assessee was re-opened u/s 147 and the reasons to belive recorded for initiating proceedings u/s 147 are as below: "In continuation of a search & seizure operation in the case of Sri P. Dayananda

PREMLATA BAID,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CC - XXVII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 292C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in raising presumption in respect of recordings in documents seized from the premises of a third party viz. Shri Narendra Shyamsukha, in the unrelated case of the appellant. 2(g) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of rs.14

M/S GANESHMULL BIJAY SINGH BAID (HUF),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CC - XXVII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 292C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in raising presumption in respect of recordings in documents seized from the premises of a third party viz. Shri Narendra Shyamsukha, in the unrelated case of the appellant. 2(g) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of rs.14

I.T.O WD-3, HALDIA, PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. SHYAMALI BERA, PURBA MEDINIPUR

In the result, assessee’s CO is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

292C provides that any books of account or other documents are found in possession of any person in the course of survey action under section 133A, it may be presumed that such books of account and other documents belong to such person and contents of the same are true. It may also be recalled here, that the appellant had made

ITO, WARD-40(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. VISHNU ENGG. CORPORATION, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee`s appeal and Revenue`s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.36/Kol/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ito, Ward-40(2), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Vishnu Engg. Corporation

292C where any books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing are or is found in the possession or control of any person in the course of a search under section 132 or survey under section 133A, it may, in any proceeding under this Act, be presumed, that such books of account, other documents

VISHNU ENGINEERING CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-56(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee`s appeal and Revenue`s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.36/Kol/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ito, Ward-40(2), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Vishnu Engg. Corporation

292C where any books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing are or is found in the possession or control of any person in the course of a search under section 132 or survey under section 133A, it may, in any proceeding under this Act, be presumed, that such books of account, other documents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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