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)

unexplained. More so when the onus is on the assessee to prove the genuineness, creditworthiness and the identity of the investors. Thus, on analysis of all these facts the assessing officer opined that the assessee company has raised share capital and/or premium in order to route its undisclosed money to the desired end of the beneficiaries taking recourse

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 tribunal has referred to the details of the share subscribers/companies in paragraph 11 of the impugned order which contains a tabulated format giving the names of the shareholders, number of equity shares, share capital, share premium, share application money

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

unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee company may not come under the purview of section 68 in the hands of the investor company in the same year as the corresponding liability was raised in the investee company i.e. assessee?” Learned advocate appearing for the assessee submits that, the identity of the persons, who applied for the shares

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.

money under Section 68 of the Act as undisclosed cash credit, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Kolkata – 20 [CIT(A)] has done an elaborately factual exercise. There were two companies which were involved one being M/s. Honesty Dealers Private Limited and the other M/s. Seaview Agencies Private Limited. The CIT(A) has examined the factual position in respect

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

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 unsecured loan and interest there of whereas per various case laws the onus is on the assessee to establish the existence, genuineness and creditworthiness of the new loan introduced, which he has failed to satisfy the Assessing Officer? 2. The assessee filed the return of income for the assessment under consideration

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

unexplained expenditure trade commission charged by the operators and worked out the sum of Rs. 14,118/- and the total addition was computed at Rs. 28,37,618/-. The assessee was informed that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is to be initiated separately. With the above finding, the assessment was completed by Order dated

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

unexplained expenditure trade commission charged by the operators and worked out the sum of Rs. 14,118/- and the total addition was computed at Rs. 28,37,618/-. The assessee was informed that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is to be initiated separately. With the above finding, the assessment was completed by Order dated

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

unexplained expenditure trade commission charged by the operators and worked out the sum of Rs. 14,118/- and the total addition was computed at Rs. 28,37,618/-. The assessee was informed that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is to be initiated separately. With the above finding, the assessment was completed by Order dated

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

unexplained expenditure trade commission charged by the operators and worked out the sum of Rs. 14,118/- and the total addition was computed at Rs. 28,37,618/-. The assessee was informed that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is to be initiated separately. With the above finding, the assessment was completed by Order dated

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

unexplained expenditure trade commission charged by the operators and worked out the sum of Rs. 14,118/- and the total addition was computed at Rs. 28,37,618/-. The assessee was informed that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is to be initiated separately. With the above finding, the assessment was completed by Order dated

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

unexplained expenditure trade commission charged by the operators and worked out the sum of Rs. 14,118/- and the total addition was computed at Rs. 28,37,618/-. The assessee was informed that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is to be initiated separately. With the above finding, the assessment was completed by Order dated

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

unexplained expenditure trade commission charged by the operators and worked out the sum of Rs. 14,118/- and the total addition was computed at Rs. 28,37,618/-. The assessee was informed that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is to be initiated separately. With the above finding, the assessment was completed by Order dated

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

unexplained expenditure trade commission charged by the operators and worked out the sum of Rs. 14,118/- and the total addition was computed at Rs. 28,37,618/-. The assessee was informed that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is to be initiated separately. With the above finding, the assessment was completed by Order dated

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA vs. POOJA JHUNJHUNWALA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

unexplained expenditure trade commission charged by the operators and worked out the sum of Rs. 14,118/- and the total addition was computed at Rs. 28,37,618/-. The assessee was informed that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is to be initiated separately. With the above finding, the assessment was completed by Order dated

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

unexplained expenditure trade commission charged by the operators and worked out the sum of Rs. 14,118/- and the total addition was computed at Rs. 28,37,618/-. The assessee was informed that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is to be initiated separately. With the above finding, the assessment was completed by Order dated

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

unexplained expenditure trade commission charged by the operators and worked out the sum of Rs. 14,118/- and the total addition was computed at Rs. 28,37,618/-. The assessee was informed that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is to be initiated separately. With the above finding, the assessment was completed by Order dated

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

unexplained expenditure trade commission charged by the operators and worked out the sum of Rs. 14,118/- and the total addition was computed at Rs. 28,37,618/-. The assessee was informed that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is to be initiated separately. With the above finding, the assessment was completed by Order dated

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

unexplained expenditure trade commission charged by the operators and worked out the sum of Rs. 14,118/- and the total addition was computed at Rs. 28,37,618/-. The assessee was informed that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is to be initiated separately. With the above finding, the assessment was completed by Order dated