PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. MINTO PARK ESTATES PVT LTD

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the learned

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of share capital/premium as unexplained cash credit despite the respondent

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

Bench: :

unexplained cash – credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 involving proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Income

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)

unexplained cash credit as contemplated under section 68 of the Act to the tune of Rs.2,84,15,960/-. The learned

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S NARSINGH ISPAT LTD

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya Date : 11Th March, 2024 Appearance : M S. Smita Das De, Adv. Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. …For Appellant Mr. Kartik Kurmy, Adv. (Vc) Mr. Indranil Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Subrata Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Debayan Dutta, Adv. …For Respondent. The Court : We Have Heard Ms. Smita Das De, Learned Standing Counsel Appearing For The Appellant Revenue & Mr. Kartik Kurmy, Learned Counsel Appearing For The Respondent Assessee. There Is A Delay Of 59 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Given By The Appellant Department For Not Preferring The Appeal Within The Period Of Limitation. Hence, The Condone Delay Petition Is Allowed & Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned.

unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. Similarly, for the assessment year 2012-13 there was another information

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

cash credit or unexplained expenditure is not tenable. Further, it was submitted that the unsecured loans added had been squared off during the year itself and was non-existent in the year-end which does not call for any addition. The unsecured loan during the year is on the basis of pure assumption and surmises and the interest was paid

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

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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MUKESH SARAOGI (HUF)

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

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

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

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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12, KOLKATA vs. MUKTA AGARWAL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5,KOLKATA vs. SWATI BAJAJ

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL -1, KOLKATA vs. SURAJ SAHANA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-15, KOLKATA vs. SMT. BABITA AGARWAL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-18, KOLKATA vs. SRI VIKASH GOEL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, KOLKATA vs. KRISHNA KUMAR PARSURAMKA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

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

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

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