SHREE AUTOMOTIVE PRIVATE LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2012-13 is allowed and appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

TDS on the said genuine unsecured loan is completely unfounded, unjustified and untenable in law. 5. That, the Ld. CIT(A) further erred on facts and in law in having upheld the addition of Rs.4,12,50,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act on the specious ground of unexplained share application money with premium received during

SHREE AUTOMOTIVE PRIVATE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-10. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2012-13 is allowed and appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

TDS on the said genuine unsecured loan is completely unfounded, unjustified and untenable in law. 5. That, the Ld. CIT(A) further erred on facts and in law in having upheld the addition of Rs.4,12,50,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act on the specious ground of unexplained share application money with premium received during

M/S. FUTURE DISTRIBUTORS,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, KOLKATA - 9, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

TDS on reimbursement is found to be not acceptable, the deduction of tax at source, if any, was required to be done as per the provisions of section 194B applicable to payment of income by way of winning from any lottery, etc. and not under section 194G as held by the ld. CIT. He invited our attention to the provisions

BEEKAY VANIJYA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 7(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2014-15 Beekay Vanijya Pvt. Ltd.…..…………………….……….….……….……Appellant 15, Dr. U N Brahmachari Street, Kol – 700017.. [Pan: Aabcb1093Q] Vs. Dcit, Circle -7(1), Kolkata ………..…………...……………………..…..Respondent Appearances By: Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 17, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.05.2025 Of The Nfac, Delhi [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income For Ay 2014-2015 Declaring An Income Of Rs.88,37,270/- & Was Assessed To An Income Of Rs.4,55,31,490/-. The Assessing Officer Passed Assessment Order In The Case Of The Assessee By Making The Following Additions /Disallowances:

TDS thereon c) Audited Accounts for the year ended 31.03.14 d) ITR return acknowledgement for AY 13-14 & 14-15 7. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lender company duly responded to notice u/s 133(6) of the Act and the lender company has a valid CIN, is a regular income tax assessee, has sufficient net worth

ACIT, CIRCLE - 35, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. KWALITY STEEL PROCESSORS, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sh. J.Sudhakar Reddy & Sh.S.S.Viswanethra Ravivs M/S. Kwality Steel Processors, Acit, Circle-35, 4, India Exchange Place, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700107. Kolkata-700001. Pan-Aaefk2197G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh.C.J.Singh, Jcit Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh. Miraj D.Shah, Fca Date Of Hearing 05.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 03.05.2019

section 260A of the Income Tax Act has been preferred by the appellant/revenue against the order dated 29th September, 2003 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "E" Bench, Kolkata in ITA 1203 (Cal) of 1999 in respect of Assessment Year 1994-1995 on the following questions: (a) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

RAGUVALIKA TRADING PVT LTD ( SINCE MERGED WITH M.M.MURARKA SHARE & SECURITIES PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

260A. No substantial question of law is raised. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.' It is pertinent to note that the decision of Bombay High Court was subjected to further appeal by the revenue before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Special Leave Petition (SLP) was dismissed by the Supreme Court. 5.3.10 We also find that there is no material

RAGUVALIKA TRADING PVT LTD ( SINCE MERGED WITH M.M.MURARKA SHARE & SECURITIES PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

260A. No substantial question of law is raised. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.' It is pertinent to note that the decision of Bombay High Court was subjected to further appeal by the revenue before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Special Leave Petition (SLP) was dismissed by the Supreme Court. 5.3.10 We also find that there is no material

RAGUVALIKA TRADING PVT LTD ( SINCE MERGED WITH M.M.MURARKA SHARE & SECURITIES PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

260A. No substantial question of law is raised. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.' It is pertinent to note that the decision of Bombay High Court was subjected to further appeal by the revenue before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Special Leave Petition (SLP) was dismissed by the Supreme Court. 5.3.10 We also find that there is no material

RAGUVALIKA TRADING PVT LTD ( SINCE MERGED WITH M.M.MURARKA SHARE & SECURITIES PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

260A. No substantial question of law is raised. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.' It is pertinent to note that the decision of Bombay High Court was subjected to further appeal by the revenue before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Special Leave Petition (SLP) was dismissed by the Supreme Court. 5.3.10 We also find that there is no material

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. VEDA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

260A. No substantial question of law is raised. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.' & CO Nos. 153 & 154/Kol/2010 Veda Commercial Pvt. Ltd., AY 2006-07 & 2007-08 It is pertinent to note that the decision of Bombay High Court was subjected to further appeal by the revenue before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Special Leave Petition (SLP) was dismissed

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. VEDA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

260A. No substantial question of law is raised. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.' & CO Nos. 153 & 154/Kol/2010 Veda Commercial Pvt. Ltd., AY 2006-07 & 2007-08 It is pertinent to note that the decision of Bombay High Court was subjected to further appeal by the revenue before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Special Leave Petition (SLP) was dismissed

RAJENDRA KUMAR KAPOOR,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 29,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

260A dismissed.”\n6.\nIn view of the above, we set aside the order of Id. CIT (A) and direct\nthe Id. AO to delete the addition.\n7.\nIn the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.\nOrder pronounced in the open court on 26.02.2026.\nSd/-\n(PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY)\n(JUDICIAL MEMBER)\nSd/-\n(RAJESH KUMAR)\n(ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EDUCO VENTURES PVT LTD, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: the AO.

TDS is deducted on it. The assessee claims these are pertaining to capital expenses, hence, Section 40A(3) and Section 40(a)(ia) does not attracts to it. Hence, no adverse view is taken on this and addition to the extent of Rs. 1,64,02,821/- on account of payment made to M/s. JMD Construction made

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EDUCO VENTURES PVT LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: the AO.

TDS is deducted on it. The assessee claims these are pertaining to capital expenses, hence, Section 40A(3) and Section 40(a)(ia) does not attracts to it. Hence, no adverse view is taken on this and addition to the extent of Rs. 1,64,02,821/- on account of payment made to M/s. JMD Construction made

EDUCO VENTURES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: the AO.

TDS is deducted on it. The assessee claims these are pertaining to capital expenses, hence, Section 40A(3) and Section 40(a)(ia) does not attracts to it. Hence, no adverse view is taken on this and addition to the extent of Rs. 1,64,02,821/- on account of payment made to M/s. JMD Construction made

EDUCO VENTURES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: the AO.

TDS is deducted on it. The assessee claims these are pertaining to capital expenses, hence, Section 40A(3) and Section 40(a)(ia) does not attracts to it. Hence, no adverse view is taken on this and addition to the extent of Rs. 1,64,02,821/- on account of payment made to M/s. JMD Construction made

SRI HARTAJ SEWA SINGH,KOLKATA vs. DCIT(IT), CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2012-13

section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961 has been amended w.e.f. 1st June, 2015 and the word in the opinion of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner has been inserted. Now an order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if in the opinion

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. GOLDEN GOENKA CREDIT PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

TDS was deducted and deposited in accordance with law. 6.2.12. All the above discussions established the fact that the loans from the said five companies were given from the creditors disclosed bank accounts, and were received in the disclosed bank account of the Appellant. These loans were duly reflected in the assessee`s books of account and the said loans