PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S EDMOND FINVEST PVT LTD

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 26Th February, 2024. Appearance : Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. …For Appellant Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Adv. …For Respondent The Court :- Heard Learned Counsel On Both Sides. This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16Th May, 2023 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ‘B’ Bench, Kolkata In I.T.A. No. 96/Kol/2021 For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Low For Consideration :- I) Whether The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Has Committed Substantial Error In Law In Upholding The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Deleting The Addition Made Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On Account Of Unexplained Unsecured Loan Transactions & Interest Expense Corresponding To Such Unexplained Loan Transactions By Holding That The Assessing Officer

Income Tax (Appeals) deleting the addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of unexplained

BALGOPAL MERCHANTS PVT LTD. vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

addition made under Section 68 in respect of investments in shares of a company which the assessing officer held to be not genuine and the companies had no creditworthiness and the identity had not been ITAT NO. 232 OF 2023 REPORTABLE Page 13 of 26 established, in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5,KOLKATA vs. AMIT KUMAR JAIN

Bench: :

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 involving proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 and suspicious transanction in shares cannot be exempted under Section 10(38) of the Act? ii) Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed substantial error in law by deleting the addition

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 13 KOLKATA vs. S K AGARWALA AND CO

The appeal is allowed

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- Hon'Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 7Th February 2025. Appearance : Mr. Aryuak Dutt, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. …For Appellant. Mr. Suman Bhowmik, Adv. Mr. Nilanjan Bhattacharyya, Adv. Mr. Samrat Das, Adv. Mr. Alishan Hossain, Adv. ….For Respondent

Income Tax (Appeals) and quashing the addition of Rs.3,95,00,000/- made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9,KOLKATA vs. MANJU OSATWAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

addition directed by the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax was part of IDS, 2016 and not part of order under Section 143(3) of the Act? iii) Whether the Learned Tribunal is perverse in our looking that it is the duty of the Tribunal to scratch surface and probe documentary evidence in depth in light of conduct of assessee

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MAHALUXMI MARKETING PVT LTD

In the result, the substantial questions of law are

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Income Tax (Appeals) deleting the addition made under Section 69 of the Act on the ground that the assessee company is different juristic entity cannot be taxed by applying Section 68

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S RABINDRA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Dated : 16Th June, 2025 Appearance: Mr. Aryak Dutt, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. ..For Appellant Mr. Subash Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rajarshi Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Amit Shaw, Adv. Ms. Suman Sahani, Adv. …Respondent

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of bogus share 2 application/allotment money amounting to Rs.27,22,00,000/-? ii) Whether the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has committed substantial error in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleting the addition

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9 KOLKATA vs. M/S SREELEATHERS

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata has answered in favour of the assessee regarding addition under Section 68 of the Income

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S JEALOUS COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK,HON'BLE JUSTICE MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI

income of Rs.9,00,00,360/- making addition of the entire share capital raised from the seven shareholders including the cash credit in terms of Section 68

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. KARNI INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ,HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of share capital

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S MUNDHRA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- The Hon'Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das)

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has committed substantial error in law in deleting the total addition of Rs.2,82,00,000/- made under section 68

PR CIT 9, KOLKATA vs. MANISHA TIKMANI

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

addition made under Section 68 of the Act was to be deleted. With the above submissions, the assessee stated that since there is no specific or material findings against her so as to alleged the gain as an unexplained cash credit and that the assessee has fully and truly disclosed all facts with all supporting evidence and the entire transaction

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-SILIGURI vs. SHEKHAR AGARWAL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

addition made under Section 68 of the Act was to be deleted. With the above submissions, the assessee stated that since there is no specific or material findings against her so as to alleged the gain as an unexplained cash credit and that the assessee has fully and truly disclosed all facts with all supporting evidence and the entire transaction

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SILIGURI vs. PRAKASHO DEVI SARIA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

addition made under Section 68 of the Act was to be deleted. With the above submissions, the assessee stated that since there is no specific or material findings against her so as to alleged the gain as an unexplained cash credit and that the assessee has fully and truly disclosed all facts with all supporting evidence and the entire transaction

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9, KOLKATA vs. PUSPA DEVI TIKMANI

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

addition made under Section 68 of the Act was to be deleted. With the above submissions, the assessee stated that since there is no specific or material findings against her so as to alleged the gain as an unexplained cash credit and that the assessee has fully and truly disclosed all facts with all supporting evidence and the entire transaction

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9, KOLKATA vs. GITESH TIKMANI

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

addition made under Section 68 of the Act was to be deleted. With the above submissions, the assessee stated that since there is no specific or material findings against her so as to alleged the gain as an unexplained cash credit and that the assessee has fully and truly disclosed all facts with all supporting evidence and the entire transaction

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,BURDWAN vs. BIJAYA TAH

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

addition made under Section 68 of the Act was to be deleted. With the above submissions, the assessee stated that since there is no specific or material findings against her so as to alleged the gain as an unexplained cash credit and that the assessee has fully and truly disclosed all facts with all supporting evidence and the entire transaction

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SILIGURI vs. SRI SATYA NARAYAN SARIA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

addition made under Section 68 of the Act was to be deleted. With the above submissions, the assessee stated that since there is no specific or material findings against her so as to alleged the gain as an unexplained cash credit and that the assessee has fully and truly disclosed all facts with all supporting evidence and the entire transaction