DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. MAA ANNAPURNA TRANSPORT AGENCY LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkery, Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

Section 68 of the Act. Therefore, we do not want to interfere in the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) which is confirmed and consequently the appeal of Revenue is dismissed. 25. Ground no. 2 of revenue is against the action of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.12,75,987/- on account of interest payment

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-49(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S VISWAKARMA RESIDENCY, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. M.L.Meenaआयकर अपील सं.य/ Assessment Years:2016-17 बनाम / Acit, Cir-49(1), Kolkata M/S. Viswakarma Residency Uttarpan Complex, Ds-Iv, V/S. 2Nd Fl., Manicktala Civick Centre, Block-2 & 3, 2Nd Fl., Kolkata-700 054. Pan: Aaifv3279Q अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent .. Hearing Through Video Conferencing अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Manish Kanojia, Cit, Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri S.M Surana, Advocate, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-08-2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26-10-2021

68 of the Income Tax Act,1961. 3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(Appeal) , has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 27,034/ - on account of delayed payments of interest on service tax and TDS, without considering the fact that the assessee failed to produce any valid/ tenable explanation in this regard

LAL BABA SEAMLESS TUBES (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section 68 and the same is raised by the assessee by way of the following ground:- “1.(a) For that the Ld. CIT (A) erred in Law as well as on facts in confirming the addition made Rs.6,22,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 on the ground that "identity and creditworthiness/source of income could not be established

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. LAL BABA SEAMLESS TUBES PVT. LIMITED , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section 68 and the same is raised by the assessee by way of the following ground:- “1.(a) For that the Ld. CIT (A) erred in Law as well as on facts in confirming the addition made Rs.6,22,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 on the ground that "identity and creditworthiness/source of income could not be established

D.C.I.T., CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. NAVIN CONSTRUCTION & CREDIT PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross- objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

section 68, in the light of evidence brought on record. I find that the appellant, in the course of assessment proceedings, has brought on record the particulars of loan creditor companies including name, complete address and PAN; the mode of receipt of each loan; the bank statement of the appellant company; supporting documents relating to each loan creditor company

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA vs. EDMOND FINVEST PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 68 of the Act and consequently disallowing the corresponding interest expenditure of Rs. 1,94,958/-. In order to understand issue under consideration, it would be appropriate to bring on record the facts of the case in brief. The appellant is a non- banking financial company. In the course of its business, the appellant receives inter-corporate deposits from

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AVIMA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 68 have already been discharged by the assessee.\n6.2.13. Further, on perusal of the submitted ledger copies and confirmations of the loans, it is noticed that part of the said loans was repaid by the assessee in the same year i.e., in the FY 2015-16 and rest of the loans were repaid in the next

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. e) The AO did not accept the submissions of Assessee whereby it has distinguished the judgment of Honorable SC in PCIT vs. NRA Iron and Steel Pvt. Limited. f) The AO ignored the submission of the Assessee that section 68

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

TDS had been deducted out of the interest paid/credited to the creditors, it was held that the\ndepartmental authorities were not justified in making the addition which was directed to be deleted. CITv. Smt.\nP.K. Noorjehan [1990] 11 SCC 198 was applied. The assessee having discharged the initial onus which lay on\nit in terms of section 68

ABN TOWER & TRANSMISSION PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1519/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Abn Tower & Transmission Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aajcs 4837 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 25.03.2015 for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in upholding the addition of Rs 86,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act in the facts and circumstances

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 on the same. The appellant has submitted Ledger copies along with relevant pages of bank statement to substantiate its contention. The appellant has also stated the following to prove the three limbs of section 68

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 on the same. The appellant has submitted Ledger copies along with relevant pages of bank statement to substantiate its contention. The appellant has also stated the following to prove the three limbs of section 68

DCIT,CIR-43,KOL, KOLKATA vs. S.K.AGARWALA & CO, KOLKATA

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

68 of the Act, i.e. identity, creditworthiness of the parties and genuineness of the transactions were not satisfied and further stated that the ld. Assessing Officer has even discussed the documents filed in the assessment order and only then has taken a view that the loans were not genuine. The ld DR submitted that these parties were 6 & S.K. Agarwala

DCIT,CIR-43,KOL, KOLKATA vs. S.K.AGARWALA & CO, KOLKATA

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

68 of the Act, i.e. identity, creditworthiness of the parties and genuineness of the transactions were not satisfied and further stated that the ld. Assessing Officer has even discussed the documents filed in the assessment order and only then has taken a view that the loans were not genuine. The ld DR submitted that these parties were 6 & S.K. Agarwala

IRIS CLOTHINGS LTD,HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar

section 68 of the Act. 4. The facts in brief are that the assessee e-filed its return of income on 13.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs.52,24,330/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were duly issued and served upon the assessee. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, ld. Assessing Officer observed

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

68,963/- under section 115-0 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and\ninterest thereon Rs.4,06,965/- under section 115-P of the Act considering\nthe appellant as a Domestic Company instead of Co-operative Society,\nwhich is illegal, arbitrary and bad in law.\n5. THAT on the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals)-NFAC, has erred

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TUSCON ENGINEERS (P) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2011-12

68 is simply out of context here. The likely reason for the mix-up is because of the common word 'Credit'. The distinction is that Cash Credit concerns 'Cash' - being category of Real Asset accounts and therefore the accounting principle is that in the books of accounts when Cash comes in, it is Credited. Whereas 'Sundry Creditors for Expense' relate

RAKESH DAGA,KOLKATA vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 37, KOLKATA, GOVT. PLACE (WEST)

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Rakesh Daga Acit, Circle-37, Kolkata 71, Mondal Street Group 3, Govt. Place (West), Floor, Burra Bazar, Vs. Kolkata-700001, West Bengal Kolkata-700006, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aglpd1610Q Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Shri Joydeep Chakraborty, Ars Revenue By : Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2024

TDS details in respect of each of the lenders, which are filed in the paper book from pages no. 11 to 718. We also note that the AO issued notices under section 133(6) of the Act to twelve parties which could only be served to six parties and remaining six cases, the notices were returned back unserved. We note