SRI CHHANDAK CHAKRABORTY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-51(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

depositing of cash towards investment was duly confirmed in Affidavit by the owners of the cash.” Further, assessee also submitted additional grounds, which are reproduced below:- “(1) That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A.O erred in having treated the revised return filed u/s. 139(5) of the Act as invalid

ITO, WD-51(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI CHHANDAK CHAKRABORTY, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

depositing of cash towards investment was duly confirmed in Affidavit by the owners of the cash.” Further, assessee also submitted additional grounds, which are reproduced below:- “(1) That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A.O erred in having treated the revised return filed u/s. 139(5) of the Act as invalid

SABITA RUDRA,NORTH TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 50(1)KOLKATA, KOLKATA

cash deposits and also for the claim of expenses which are\nnot liable to suffer TDS as per provision of law.\n5.\nFor

DEPUTY COMMISSOENR OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

TDS was duly deducted and deposited the same. Further, the part of the said loan has also been squared up during this F.Y. and entire loan was refunded subsequently. Finally, the ld. AO after rejecting the replies/contentions of the assessee treated the unsecured loan of ₹4,49,37,500/- as unexplained cash

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

TDS was duly deducted and deposited the same. Further, the part of the said loan has also been squared up during this F.Y. and entire loan was refunded subsequently. Finally, the ld. AO after rejecting the replies/contentions of the assessee treated the unsecured loan of ₹4,49,37,500/- as unexplained cash

EIH LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

cash deposits over a period of time, even prior to the demonetization period. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances it is felt that since the impugned amount represents merely 0.3% of the total turnover of business and the receipt have happened across 31 hotel properties of the appellant, we are persuaded to believe that the appellant has done everything

EIH LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC, DELHI, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

cash deposits over a period of time, even prior to the demonetization period. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances it is felt that since the impugned amount represents merely 0.3% of the total turnover of business and the receipt have happened across 31 hotel properties of the appellant, we are persuaded to believe that the appellant has done everything

MANIK CHAND AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O. WD - 32(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ]

Cash received from employer a) For salary earned during A.Y.2009-10 Rs.1,75,680.00 b) For salary earned last year remained Unpaid same paid during A.Y.09-10 Rs.1,68,380.00 c) Advance taken from the company Rs.1,85,000.00 d) Short term loan from the company Rs.2,00,000.00 Rs.7,29,060.00 2)Withdrawal from Bank Rs.6,00,000.00 Rs.21

SUNIL AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shris.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Dr.A.L. Saini, Hon’Ble

deposited cash in her bank account. 7. That the Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, erred in disallowing the sum of Rs.1,41,360 by wrongly alleging that thee was no nexus between loan borrowed by the assessee in his individual name with the business of the assessee. 8. That without prejudice to Ground No. 7 above, the learned Commissioner

I.T.O WD - 53(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI NIRAPADA PATRA, SOUTH 24 PARGANAS

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

cash deposit as income of the assessee. Similarly, the AO also observed that ABC Engg. Works has deposited TDS of Rs.19

MAA SHARADA ENTERPRISE,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-50(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 586/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Maa Sharada Enterprise,……..………….……Appellant Talbabnda Jugberia, Ghola, North 24-Parganas, Pin Code No.700110, West Bengal [Pan:Aatfm5656M] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-50(1), Kolkata, Income Tax Office, Manicktala, Civil Centre, Uttarapan Complex-Ds-Iv, Kolkata-700067 Appearances By: Shri Giridhar Dhelia, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kapil Mondal, Addl. Cit (Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: September 09, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 07, 2024 O R D E R

cash. Only thing which was required to be explained was the source of such deposits, which assessee has explained i.e. out of sale proceeds, deposits have been made. 8 Maa Sharada Enterprise 12. On due consideration of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the view that addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer and confirmed

SMT NIRMALI BHADRA GHOSH,DARJEELING vs. ACIT, CIR-3, SILIGURI, DARJEELING

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

deposited of Rs.7,17,488/- collected by the assessee" is totally baseless”. 5. The ld. CIT(Appeals) did not find merit in the above submissions made on behalf of the assessee and rejecting the same, he proceeded to confirm the addition of Rs.11,16,426/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged undisclosed commission income for the following

ACIT, CIR-1, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR vs. SHRI RAKESH KUMAR CHOWDHURY, DURGAPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

TDS deducted FY by HSCL 07-08 & gross amount of turnover was shown in 07-08 02.02.09 LOAN Cash drawn 4000,000.00 Withdrawn form VIJAYA Rs.500000/- & cash Vijaya Bank account BANK deposited

SHRI RAKESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY,DURGAPUR vs. ACIT, CIR-DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

TDS deducted FY by HSCL 07-08 & gross amount of turnover was shown in 07-08 02.02.09 LOAN Cash drawn 4000,000.00 Withdrawn form VIJAYA Rs.500000/- & cash Vijaya Bank account BANK deposited

RAJIB BANERJEE,DURGAPUR vs. A.C.I.T CIR - 1,DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: : Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

TDS when the amount paid to two different individuals are less than the stipulated limit and the addition may please be deleted. 3. For that on the facts of the case the CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.24,71,659/- on a/c of cash deposits

PODDAR REALTORS PVT. LTD.,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), BURDWAN, BURDWAN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 265/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Poddar Realtors Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), 1, Parkus Road, Burdwan Vs Burdwan Pin- 713101 [Pan : Aagcp2937G] अपीलाथ"/ (Assessee ) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Fca Revenue By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 07/02/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dt. 27/09/2021. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Addition Of Rs.25,00,000/- Made U/S 68 Was Factually As Well As Legally Unsustainable & Therefore The Same Deserves To Be Deleted. 2. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Authorities Below Were Unjustified-In Not Appreciating That The Assessee Had Duly Discharged Its Onus Of Establishing The Identity, Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of The Loan Creditor & In That View Of The Matter The Addition Of Rs. 25,00,000/- Made By Way Of Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 Was Untenable On Facts & In Law.

cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee , as wrongly alleged in the recorded reasons. It is thus noted that the reasons recorded prior to reopening proceeded on incorrect assumption of facts and thus ex-facie was untenable. 7. We further find, that the lender had sufficient own funds to advance the loan to the assessee. The loan

INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-30(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. JATINDRA NATH GHOSH, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

TDS is maintainable on reimbursement of expenses. 13. Heard the rival submission and perused the material available on record. It is observed from the assessment order it is clearly mentioned by the AO that the assessee did not furnish any evidence in support of his claim on expenditure. But however, it is seen from para

JYOTI JHA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT (IT), CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 225/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jyoti Jha Acit(It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata Kalani & Co. Chartered Accountants Vs 5Th Floor, Milestone Building Gandhinagar Turn Tonk Road Jaipur - 302015 [Pan : Aezpj7440J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal, Fca Revenue By : Shri Sunil Kr. Agarwala, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/08/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/10/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel – 2, New Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Drp”) Dt. 05/12/2022, Passed U/S 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. The Ld. Ao Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Assessing The Income Under The Head Capital Gain At Rs.41,46,0917- As Against Nil Income Declared By The Assessee On The Basis Of Direction Of Drp Ignoring That The Amount Of Capital Gain Has Been Invested In Purchase Of Flat Before The Time Available For Filing The Return U/S 139 & Thus Eligible For Deduction U/S 54 Of The Act Even If The Sale Deed Was Executed Subsequently. He Has Further Erred In Observing That Assessee Has Failed To Produce Documentary Evidence In Support Of Claim Ignoring That The Same Was Filed Before The Drp. 2. The Ld. Ao Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Making Addition Of Rs. 7,41,700/- In Respect Of Cash Deposit In The Bank Account U/S 68 Of The Act As Per The Direction Of Drp. He Has Further Erred In Holding That Assessee Failed To Produce Documentary Evidence In Support Of Averments In The Affidavit.

TDS Return-Rent (Section 194) On various dates Rs.70,00,000/- 2. Deposited cash of Rs. 10,00,000 or On various