METALIND PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1241/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & I.T.A. No. 1242/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Metalind Private Ltd...........……………………………………....…………………………………………Appellant 51, Canal East Road Kolkata – 700 085 [Pan : Aaccm 2883 J] Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Kolkata.......…..…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri A.K. Singh, Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 12Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 10Th , 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- Both These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1, Kolkata, (Ld. Pr. Cit) Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (The ‘Act’), Both Dt. 22/03/2017, For The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. Both These Appeals Belong To The Same Assessee. Hence For The Sake Of Convenience, They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. The Assessee Is A Company & Is In The Business Of Real Estate & Related Activities. It Filed Its Original Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011-12 On 29/09/2011, Declaring Nil Income & For The Assessment Year 2012-13 On 29/09/2012, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.5,48,59,970/-. A Search & Seizure Operation Was Conducted U/S 132 Of The Act On The Assessee On 04/10/2012. Consequentially Notice U/S 153A Of The Act, Were Issued & The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income In Response Thereto Declaring The Same Income As That Disclosed By It In The Original Return Of Income For Both The Assessment Years. The Assessing

Section 153 A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment.” 38. The present appeals concern

M/S SALARPURIA PROPERTIES PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL -2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 153A of the Act. It is settled legal position that in order to make addition in an unabated assessment on the date of search, there has to be incriminating material found during search as laid down in various decisions as cited by the assessee’s counsel supra. After carefully analyzing the facts of the acts and after the perusal

M/S. SALARPURIA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

section 153A of the Act. It is settled legal position that in order to make addition in an unabated assessment on the date of search, there has to be incriminating material found during search as laid down in various decisions as cited by the assessee’s counsel supra. After carefully analyzing the facts of the acts and after the perusal

M/S/ RASHMI METALIKS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A/DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm ]

section 153A. The disallowances made by the assessing officer were upheld by the CIT(A) but the learned Tribunal deleted those disallowances." In that view of the matter, we are unable to admit the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.” ITA Nos. 813 to 816/Kol/2017 M/s. Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. A.Y.2009-10

M/S/ RASHMI METALIKS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A/DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm ]

section 153A. The disallowances made by the assessing officer were upheld by the CIT(A) but the learned Tribunal deleted those disallowances." In that view of the matter, we are unable to admit the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.” ITA Nos. 813 to 816/Kol/2017 M/s. Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. A.Y.2009-10

M/S/ RASHMI METALIKS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A/DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm ]

section 153A. The disallowances made by the assessing officer were upheld by the CIT(A) but the learned Tribunal deleted those disallowances." In that view of the matter, we are unable to admit the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.” ITA Nos. 813 to 816/Kol/2017 M/s. Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. A.Y.2009-10

M/S/ RASHMI METALIKS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A/DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm ]

section 153A. The disallowances made by the assessing officer were upheld by the CIT(A) but the learned Tribunal deleted those disallowances." In that view of the matter, we are unable to admit the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.” ITA Nos. 813 to 816/Kol/2017 M/s. Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. A.Y.2009-10

SUBHAJIT KR. GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-XXV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2011-12

TDS of Rs.9,56,413/- and credit of seized cash of Rs.2,35,600/- as payment of advance tax. The balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid by the appellant as self-assessment tax. Thus, as per the return of income there was claim of refund of Rs.24/-. However, on perusal of the declaration petition dated 28.03.2011 filed before

M/S. INLAND TEEVRA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL - 2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

TDS is concerned, the issue has been settled in favour of the revenue and against the assessee by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Premier Irrigation Adritec P. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2023) 146 taxmann.com 389. The said decision has also been followed by various other Benches of the Tribunal. This issue

DECPUTY COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. CHIRAG JEWELLERS, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 1559/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central Circle-3(1) Chirag Jewellers 110, Shantipally, Flat 17A, Rameshwara Mansion, 10/4A Vs Kolkata-700107 Elgin Road, Kolkata-700020 West Bengal [Pan : Aabfc7914L] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent)

section 69C of the Act despite the assessee failing to establish the genuineness of the transactions and the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors? 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by acting in contravention of the established judicial precedents of CIT vs Durga Prasad More (1971_82 ITR 540 (SC) following in the case of Sumati

M/S. SENCO GOLD LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11, KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2014-15

153A of the IT Act 1961 was beyond the scope of the said section and hence the appellate order passed by the Ld CIT(A) based on the assessment order is bad in law and be quashed and/or the addition / disallowances be deleted. 7. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Assessing Officer be directed

D.C.I.T., CC-3(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. FORUM PROJECT PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three captioned appeals of the revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.(Ss)A Nos.108,109&585/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Cc-3(2), Kolkata..................................................................……Appellant Vs. M/S Forum Projects Pvt. Ltd...........................……........……...…..…..Respondent 4/1, Red Cross Place, Dalhousie, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aadcs7575E] Appearances By: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, Cit(Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 30, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 05, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Dated 20.05.2022, 08.06.2022 & 25.11.2014 Respectively Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Contesting Therein The Confirmation Of Additions Made By The Assessing Officer (In Short ‘The A.O) In The Assessments Carried Out U/S 153A Of The Act. Since The Facts & Issues Involved In All These Appeals Are Identical, Hence These Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. First We Take Revenue’S Appeal In Ita No.108/Kol/2022 For Assessment Year 2010-11. I.T.(Ss)A Nos.108,109&585/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/S Forum Projects Pvt. Ltd.

TDS had duly been deducted. This fact itself is enough to cast shadow upon the applicability of section 2(22)e of the Act. In this I.T.(SS)A Nos.108,109&585/Kol/2022 Assessment years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/s Forum Projects Pvt. Ltd. context, the case of Pradip Kumar Malhotra vs. CIT reported

KAMALA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,C.C-1(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

TDS) on certain payment of expenses which ought to have been restricted to only 30% thereof as per the provision of section 40(a0(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and thus the ld. CIT(A) was wrong in not passing the order as per law and also without affording the assessee opportunity of hearing on the matter

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(2), KOLKATA vs. ESKAG SANJEEVANI PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

153A of the Act on 28.10.2021, which was not complied with by filing any return of income. Thereafter the statutory notices along with questionnaire were duly issued and served upon the assessee and also replied by filing the requisite evidences/ details/ documents as asked by the ld. Assessing Officer. The ld. AO observed that during the year the assessee

DCIT, CC-2(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VIKRMA IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

153A of the Income Tax Act,1961 on 30/03/2022. In the assessment order the following additions were made: a) Addition of Rs.1,90,00,000 as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act,1961 read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act,1961 being unsecured loan taken by the assessee. (b) Addition of Rs.3

DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), KOLKATA vs. VIKRMA IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

153A of the Income Tax Act,1961 on 30/03/2022. In the assessment order the following additions were made: a) Addition of Rs.1,90,00,000 as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act,1961 read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act,1961 being unsecured loan taken by the assessee. (b) Addition of Rs.3

ACIT, CEN.CIR. 3(3), KOLKATA vs. M/S SURYA ALLOY INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

section 245D(4) of the Income Tax Act. The order given effect reads as under:- “OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), KOLKATA 110, Shanti Pally, E M Bypass. Kolkata -700 107 PHONE No. 033 24410187, e- mail: kolkata.dcit.cen3.3@inconietax.gov.in. SURYA ALLOYS NAME OF ASSESSEE INDUSTRIES LIMITED ADDRESS 1/1, CAMAC STREET, 3RD FLOOR, PARK STREET

DCIT, CENTRAL -4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAJESH AUTO MERCHANDISE PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 16.12.2021.\nThereafter, the statutory notices were issued along with questionnaire\nand assessee duly replied the said notices. During the course of\nassessment proceedings, the Id. AO noticed that the assessee has\nraised ₹7,57,50,000/- from six parties as unsecured loans.\nThe assessee submitted before the Id. AO that these loans

DCIT, KOLKATA vs. M/S NEW CHARAN KANWAL FINANCE COMPANY PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm & Shri Rakesh Mishra, Am Dcit, M/S New Charan Kanwal Office Of The Dcit, Central Finance Company Pvt. Ltd. Circle-2(4), Kolkata, Aaykar 32, Om Tower, 4 Th Floor, J.L, Bhavan Poorva, 4 Th Floor, 110 Nehru Road, Park Street, Vs. Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700071 Kolkata-700107, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn5381Q Assessee By : Shri Miraz D. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Praveen Kishore, Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2025

section 115BBE of the Act, being unsecured loan taken by the assessee. Aggrieved by the said order assessee preferred the appeal before the ld. CIT (A), wherein the appeal of the assessee has been allowed. 03. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the Revenue preferred an appeal. 04. The ld. DR challenges the very impugned order thereby submitting that