DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. PHPL PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 1714/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 December 2025AY 2013-14Bench: SRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal admitted the Revenue's appeal after condoning a delay. The core issue revolves around whether the CIT(A) correctly deleted additions related to share capital and commission, which the Revenue argues were not properly substantiated by the assessee.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting additions made under Section 68 for share capital and commission. The additions were based on the AO's finding that investor companies could not be traced and their directors were not produced, suggesting accommodation entries.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting additions made under Section 68 for share capital and commission when the assessee failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions with the investor companies.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 153A,Section 143(3),Section 250,Section 133(6),Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(5)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY & SRI RAKESH MISHRA

For Appellant: CA &
For Respondent: DR. Assessee represented by : A.K. Tulsyan, FCA &

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2013-14 dated 26.12.2023, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act, dated 31.03.2016. 1. 1. The Registry has informed that the appeal filed by the Revenue is barred by limitation by 170 days. A petition seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the Revenue giving sequence of events. It is submitted that there was a delay in

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →