YOGESH TRANSPORT PVT LTD,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Section 69C) and the related addition\nof 88% of lorry expenses as income are upheld due to the appellant's failure to\nprovide credible evidence, including valid> bills, vouchers, and proof of genuine\ntransportation expenses. The disallowance of Iprry expenses due to non-\ndeduction of TDS

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

69C of the Act on account of commission paid for accommodation entry despite the assessee failing to establish the genuineness of the transactions and the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors? 4. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law by restricting the disallowance of Rs. 18,67,227/- under section

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

69C of the Act on account of commission paid for accommodation entry despite the assessee failing to establish the genuineness of the transactions and the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors? 4. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law by restricting the disallowance of Rs. 18,67,227/- under section

ITO, WARD-1(2),, SILIGURI vs. BINOY AGARWAL, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 69C On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals)\nconcluded that since Assessing Officer did not doubt genuineness of payments made\nthrough banking channels and accepted total sales, entire purchases couldn't be\ndisallowed Instead, only profit element was considered, restricting unexplained\nexpenditure to 8 per cent of total purchases Tribunal accepted factual finding\nrecorded by Commissioner (Appeals) - Whether sinceboth Commissioner (Appeals)\nand

SINGH CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION,DURGAPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2,, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 69C as bogus expenditure, citing the recipient's failure to file a return of income.", "held": "The Tribunal observed that the assessee had furnished details of 24 sub-contractors, including the impugned one, with TDS

S. K. DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

section 69C of the Act cannot be attracted. So, the impugned action of the Ld. CIT(A) to confirm the erroneous addition of AO u/s. 69C of the Act was also patently erroneous. 6. Moreover, the Ld. AR also brought to our notice that the amount of Rs.1.20 cr. out of Rs.1.39 cr. has been refunded/repaid as per the order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. WELKIN TELECOM INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav (Vice President), Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member)

section 69C of the Act. 14. Ld. AO made the disallowance of the site expenses on the ground that the assessee failed to file explanation along with the documentary evidence, attendance register, salary and break up of over time etc. We observe that the assessee is providing support services to various telecom operators wherein scope of services to various telecom

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

Accordingly appeal of the assessee dismissed

section 69C - Appellate Authorities exercised their discretion against revenue and in favour of assessee for reason that no stock discrepancy could be demonstrated and there was no corroboration of figures forming basis of addition to income of assessee as was directed by Assessing Officer - No question about said document was put to assessee in course of search - Thus, appellate authorities

ACIT, CIRCLE-40, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAHUL SARAF (HUF), KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 710/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13

section 69C of the Act, Rs.2, 08,001/- is being added back to the income of the assessee." 13.1. In regard to the Ground No. 13 stated above, the appellant has submitted the following: "That Ground No. '13', relates to addition on account of unexplained expenditure amounting to Rs.2,08,001/- The said addition is completely wrong as there

ITO, WARD - 3(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BISCO METAL & POWER PVT. LTD., JHARKHAND

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

TDS as per section 194C . (v) Ld. CIT(A) has erred on the facts & circumstances of the case in deleting the addition of Rs.11 ,42,075/- which was made by the AO u/s 41 (1) for cessation of trading liability. (vi) Ld. CIT(A) has erred on the facts & circumstances of the case in deleting the addition

SRI SUNDAR SHAW L/H OF LATE LAL BEHARI SHAW,SOUTH 24 PARGANAS vs. ACIT, CIR-53, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

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

69C of the Income Tax Act and included in the income of the assessee. 4, Further, the AO called upon the assessee to show cause as to why despite the fact that the assessee had made payments in the nature of hire charges for goods carriage vehicles, which were within the purview of Sec. 194C of the Income

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]

69C of the Income Tax Act,1961 read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act,1961 on account of interest incurred and paid on loan to the lending companies. 3. Aggrieved by the said order the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been allowed. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied

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]

69C of the Income Tax Act,1961 read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act,1961 on account of interest incurred and paid on loan to the lending companies. 3. Aggrieved by the said order the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been allowed. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied

ARPIT SEN,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 29, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: the completion of the Ld. AO as well as by the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC, despite backed by all corroborative and supported evidences, is unlawful, unwarranted and against natural justice. Your appellant prays that such an unwarranted refusal of tax credit may please be directed to be deleted. [Relief claimed Allowance of Credit of Taxes paid amounting to Rs.21,88,820.24/-].

section 69C is based on assumption and surmises just to establish genuine & bona-fide expenses as not supported by proper documents. Hence, such confirmation of the arbitrary addition by the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC be directed to be deleted. [Relief claimed Deletion of the addition of Rs.2,35,44,107/- made u/s 69C). 3. That the denial of credit

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. DHANSAR ENGINEERING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

TDS etc. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the revenue preferred an appeal before us. 5. The Ld. D.R challenges the very impugned order on the following grounds: i) That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made u/s 69 of the Act amounting

RITESH KUMAR BOYED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 40, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am] I.T.A. No. 2327/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Ritesh Kumar Boyed.................................………………………………………............Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, 2Nd Floor, Suite 213, Kolkata – 700 069. [Pan: Aeapb 7186 C] Acit Circle 40...................……………………………………………....................................Respondent 3, Govt. Place, Kolkata – 700 001. Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 28, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 20, 2018 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 13, Kolkata Dated 18.07.2017. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual Who Is Engaged In The Business Of Dealing In Auto Parts Under The Name & Style Of His Proprietary Concern M/S. Surendra Motors. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed By Him On 29.09.2008 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 2,77,976/-. A Survey Under Section 133A Was Carried Out In The Business Premises Of The Assessee On 25.01.2008. As Found From The Documents Impounded During The Course Of Survey, Sales Were Recorded To The Tune Of Rs. 2,46,23,315/- Whereas Sales Reflected In The Audited Profit & Loss Account Of The Assessee Were Only To The Tune Of Rs. 2,07,65,620/-. Since This Difference Of Rs. 38,57,695/- Could Not Be Explained By The Assessee

69C by treating the cash expenses claimed by the assessee in the cash book to that extent as unexplained. Accordingly, after making some other small addition to the total income of the assessee, assessment was completed by the AO under section 143(3) vide an order dated 15.12.2010 on a total income of Rs. 15,64,492/-. 3. Against

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

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