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

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

disallowance was warranted.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "69A", "147", "148", "143(3)", "132", "69C", "292C", "68", "133(6)", "36(1)" ], "issues

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

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

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

292C only upon\n“Anup Majee Group” and not to any other. It may be treated as\n“information” for purpose of reopening u/s 148 but the AO needs to\nbring corroborative incriminating evidence on record which AO\nfailed to and hence reliance on such alleged material or alleged\nstatement is bad in lawpar”icularly \"absence of any independent\nverific

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

292C only upon\n“Anup Majee Group” and not to any other. It may be treated as\n“information” for purpose of reopening u/s 148 but the AO needs to\nbring corroborative incriminating evidence on record which AO\nfailed to and hence reliance on such alleged material or alleged\nstatement is bad in lawpar”icularly \"absence of any independent\nverific

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

292C only upon\n“Anup Majee Group” and not to any other. It may be treated as\n“information” for purpose of reopening u/s 148 but the AO needs to\nbring corroborative incriminating evidence on record which AO\nfailed to and hence reliance on such alleged material or alleged\nstatement is bad in lawpar”icularly \"absence of any independent\nverific

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

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

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

disallowing corresponding sales, which is not permissible. Unsecured loans were found to be genuine, and repayment before search or in subsequent financial years, coupled with proper documentation, meant section 68 additions were not sustainable.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "69A", "147", "148", "143(3)", "132", "292C

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and\nappeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM\nAND\nSHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM\nIT(SS)A No.86 to 89/KOL/2025, 2007/KOL/2025\n(Assessment Year: 2017-18 to 2020-21, 2021-22)\nAmar Kumar Agarwal\nC/o M/s Salarpuria Jajodia&\nCO.7, CR Avenue, 3rd Floor,\nKolkata-700072, West Bengal\n(Appellant)\nDCIT, CC 4(3)\nAaykarBhawanPoorva,\nVs.110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass,\nKolkata-700107, West Bengal\n(Respondent)\nPAN No. ADDPA3301L\nITA Nos.1496,1497,1498, 1499/KOL/2025, & 1440/KOL/2025\n(Α.Υ.: 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21,

disallowance of expenditure of Rs.\n112,959,517/-estimating income at the rate of 12.5% of such bogus purchases.\"\n8. 2. 6. Further, reliance is also placed in the case of 'M/S. Alokik Steels Pvt. Ltd Village\nvs Principal Commissioner Of Income on 3 March, 2021, ITA No. 861/JP/2019', the\nHon'ble ITAT, Jaipur had held as under:-\n\"Further

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

292C only upon\n“Anup Majee Group” and not to any other. It may be treated as\n“information” for purpose of reopening u/s 148 but the AO needs to\nbring corroborative incriminating evidence on record which AO\nfailed to and hence reliance on such alleged material or alleged\nstatement is bad in lawpar”icularly \"absence of any independent\nverific

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

disallowed, and profit element was considered. Several additions were deleted based on lack of evidence or contrary judicial pronouncements.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "69A", "68", "147", "148", "143(3)", "132", "292C

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

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

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

292C only upon\n“Anup Majee Group” and not to any other. It may be treated as\n“information” for purpose of reopening u/s 148 but the AO needs to\nbring corroborative incriminating evidence on record which AO\nfailed to and hence reliance on such alleged material or alleged\nstatement is bad in lawpar”icularly \"absence of any independent\nverific

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

292C only upon\n“Anup Majee Group” and not to any other. It may be treated as\n“information” for purpose of reopening u/s 148 but the AO needs to\nbring corroborative incriminating evidence on record which AO\nfailed to and hence reliance on such alleged material or alleged\nstatement is bad in lawpar”icularly \"absence of any independent\nverific