RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2(1), JALPAIGURI

In the result, the appeal for A

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

TDS under the Act. 14. We have considered the submission made. The assessee submitted before us in the course of appeal that on account of demonetization

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

demonetization period. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated this as unexplained money under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE and added it to the total income. Additionally, a disallowance of Rs. 81,141/- was made on account of non-deduction of TDS

GREENBILT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

TDS has been deducted u/s 194C of the Act. 4 I.T.A. No. 1421/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Greenbilt Industries Ltd. 4. Aggrieved by the said order the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed on the ground that the assessee has not submitted any bank account statement to shows

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

demonetization period. To our mind, it is an arbitrarily exercise of powers at the end of the revenue. There is no logic or reasoning given for not accepting these cash deposits. The assessee was in such a line of business, where it has to sale pulses, wheat gram, flour and related products in cash. The other argument given

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)

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 within his powers to maintain meticulous records of such receipts

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)

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 within his powers to maintain meticulous records of such receipts

DWARKA DAS AGARWAL,PARK CIRCUS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)KOL, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

demonetization period for which the Ld. Additional/JCIT (Appeal) has not given any adverse remarks. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the appeal has been filed. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and also gone through the facts of the case. It is evident from a perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) that while

CHANDRA SALES AGENCY,SIKKIM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3(2), GANGTOK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

demonetization period during the year. The assessee during the course of assessment submitted before the Assessing Officer that she is proprietor of M/s. Chandra Sales Agency and is a member of Association of Old Settler of Sikkim who had filed a Writ Petition (Civil) 59 of 2013 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court

USUF TRADING CO.,,MURSHIDABAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA - 1,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata - 1, Usuf Trading Co., Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Near Railway Station, Dhuliyan Ward - 42(1), Murshidabad, 39, Jangipur, Murshidabad, Vs. R.N. Tagore Road, Behrampur, West Bengal, 742202 Murshidabad, West Bengal, 742101 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacfu4764B Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanat Raha, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 07.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.05.2025

demonetization period. Accordingly, the statutory notices along with questionnaire were duly issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee is engaged in the business of trading of biri leaves and tobacco under the name of M/S Usuf Trading Co. During the assessment proceeding the assessee was required to file various evidences which were accordingly furnished before

ABHISHEK SAHA,HOOGHLY vs. ACIT, CIR. 23(1), HOOGHLY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Years: 2017-18 Abhishek Saha Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. 24, Lenin Sarani, Mallickpara Income Tax, Circle-23(1), Hooghly - 712203 Kolkata [Pan: Bvhps3605N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri U. Dasgupta, Advocate Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/03/2023 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 23/12/2021 For Assessment Year 2017-18 Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Passed By Acit, Circle-23(1), Hooghly, Dated 07/11/2019. Assessee Has Placed On Record Revised Grounds Of Appeal For Which 2. Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Gave Assurance To The Bench That There Are No New Grounds Taken While Revising The Grounds. These Are Merely To Summarize & Concise The Grounds Originally Taken By The Assessee.

demonetization on 08/11/2016 at Rs.11,53,329/-. Further ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that total turnover of assessee during the year under consideration was Rs.32,20,61,758/- and thus, the deposit of amount of 3 Assessment Years: 2017-18 Abhishek Saha Rs.3,74,400/- is a miniscule amount in comparison to the total turnover which is adequately substantiated

YASH ALLOYS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 8(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

demonetization period i.e. from 08.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 in as many as seven bank accounts held in several banks. It was further noticed that for the entire year cash deposits made in the bank accounts by the assessee were to the tune of Rs. 16,43,43,050/-. It is recorded I.T.A. No.: 443/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Yash Alloys