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

undisclosed income was duly offered to tax before filing the income tax return as specified u/s 139(1) of the Act. During search proceedings, no detection of concealed income was found by the Revenue. Therefore, there was no concealed income declared by assessee 4.1 The amount seized by search team for ₹2,35,600/- was claimed as pre- paid

HARBANS LAL MALHOTRA & SONS PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CIR - 3,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2004-05 Harbans Lal Malhotra & V/S. Acit, Circle-3, Ayakar Sons Pvt. Ltd., Malhotra Bhawan, 4Th Floor, P-7, House, P-12, New Cit Chowringhee Square, Road, Kolkata – 700 073 Kolkata – 700 069 [Pan No Aaach 6617 F] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

income and claimed the full credit of the TDS. Accordingly the AO has added the undisclosed income for the above

DCIT, CIR-10(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SONODYNE TELEVISION CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 330/Kol/2016 Assessment Year :2011-12 Dcit, Circle-10(2), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Sonodyne Television Co. Ltd. [Pan: Aaecs 7096 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

undisclosed income and added to the total income of the assessee under the head income from other sources. 10 M/s Sonodyne Television Co. Ltd. A.Yr. 2011-12 15. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that it has not received any income as discussed above from the aforesaid parties

DCIT, CIRCLE - 33, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI BINOY PODDAR, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of revenue as well as cross objection of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

income is to be estimated out of the undisclosed transactions of sales and purchases. Accordingly, we have no hesitation in confirming the action of CIT(A) in deleting the addition. Hence, this ground of revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 8. The next issue in this appeal of revenue is against the order of CIT(A) deleting the disallowance of expenses

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SPPL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

undisclosed income ignoring the fact that such difference ignoring the fact that such difference was on account of rental receipt of Rs.70,09,943/ s on account of rental receipt of Rs.70,09,943/- and reimbursement of electricity charges and generator charges for which net income (receipt icity charges and generator charges for which net income (receipt icity charges

ACIT, CIRCLE - 10(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. EMAMI FRANK ROSS LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am] I.T.A. No. 529/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Acit Circle 10(2) Kolkata..............................…………………………............................Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata – 700 069. Emami Frank Ross Ltd.....................…………………………………………………….........Respondent 7, J.L. Nehru Road, Kolkata – 700 013. [Pan: Aaacf 3726 D] Appearances By: Shri Imlimeren Jamir, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri S.K. Agarwal, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 14, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 22, 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 5, Kolkata Dated 04.12.2017 On The Following Grounds: “1. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Restricting The Disallowance Of Rs. 61,78,614/- To Rs. 3,12,796/- Ignoring The Fact That During The Stage Of Re-Assessment Proceeding The Claim Of The Assessee Could Not Be Verified In Absence Of Necessary Details Of Sales & Supporting Books Of Accounts & At The Appellate Stage The Assessee Failed To Reconcile The Sale Amount Vis-A-Vis Gross Receipts As Per Tds Certificate & Tds Thereon. 2. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Going Into The Fact That The Assessee Has Only Furnished A Branch Wise Break Up Of Sales But Has Not Submitted Any Supporting Documentary Evidences Regarding Inclusion Of Above Receipts From M/S. Dishnet Wireless Ltd. & M/S. Amalgamated Bean Coffee Trading Co. Ltd.”

TDS amount against miscellaneous income instead of respective heads and it was due to this mistake that the AO treated the amount of Rs. 56,00236/- as the undisclosed

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

undisclosed income. Any action on the contrary shall be viewed adversely. Further, in respect of pending assessment proceedings also, assessing officers should rely upon the evidences/materials gathered during the course of search/survey operations or thereafter while framing the relevant assessment orders Yours faithfully,” 12.5. A perusal of the above circular also shows that it is in the notice

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

undisclosed income. Any action on the contrary shall be viewed adversely. Further, in respect of pending assessment proceedings also, assessing officers should rely upon the evidences/materials gathered during the course of search/survey operations or thereafter while framing the relevant assessment orders Yours faithfully,” 12.5. A perusal of the above circular also shows that it is in the notice

DCIT, CIRCLE - 2, MIDNAPORE, PASCHIM MEDINIPUR vs. M/S. GRAMI AGRO PVT. LTD., PASCHIM MEDINIPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2007-08

income from undisclosed sources based on voluntary disclosure of the assessee during the course of survey u/s. 133A on 2.6.03.2007. ITA No.755/Kol/2011 A.Y.2007-08 DCIT, Cir-2, Mid. V. M/s Grami Agro Pvt. Ltd. Page 2 ii. the Ld. CIT(A) is erred in deleting the additions of Rs.9,87,919/- made u/s 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction

M/S KALPANA BIRI MFG. CO. PVT. LTD.,MURSHIDABAD vs. ACIT, CIR- MURSHIDABAD, MURSHIDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2010-11 M/S Kalpana Biri Mfg. Co. Acit, Circle, बनाम / Pvt. Ltd., Vill. & P.O. Murshidabad, 39 R.N. V/S. Auragabad Dist. Tagore Road, P.O. Murshidabad, Berhampur, Pin. 742 101 Pin-742 201 [Pan No. Aabck 7051 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri S.L. Kochar, Advocate & अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 18-09-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 10-11-2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxxvi, Kolkata Dated 31.03.2014. Assessment Was Framed By Acit, Circle-Murshidabad U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 13.02.2013 For Assessment Year 2010-11. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Per Its Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Not Having Deleted The Addition To Income For Rs.30628425/- As Alleged Unexplained Investment U/S 69 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On Account Of Alleged Suppression Of Value Of Stock.”

undisclosed income would be none taken 3 crore. I am giving you a chance to disclose the income which you have considered in this current year till date. Ans 8: Sir, I am accepting the survey finding and on the basis of survey finding I am disclosing Rs. 3.00 crore as additional income in this current year and immediately paying

V.K.PURI.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT CIR - 26,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

undisclosed income. But actually these are 3 FDs in the name of the assessee, his wife and one daughter – Neha Puri. The ld. AR drew our attention to pages 115 to 117 of the paper book where it was seen from the bank statement that a sum of Rs. 48,000.00 each were deposited in FD account in the above

V.K.PURI.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT CIR - 26,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

undisclosed income. But actually these are 3 FDs in the name of the assessee, his wife and one daughter – Neha Puri. The ld. AR drew our attention to pages 115 to 117 of the paper book where it was seen from the bank statement that a sum of Rs. 48,000.00 each were deposited in FD account in the above

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

undisclosed income both under the normal provisions as well as u/s 115JB of the Act. The Ld. AO noted on comparison of ITS details as per Form No. 26AS that certain interest and rental income had not been credited by the assessee in the profit and loss account though the same were reflected in Form No. 26AS and the credit

COAL INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

undisclosed income both under the normal provisions as well as u/s 115JB of the Act. The Ld. AO noted on comparison of ITS details as per Form No. 26AS that certain interest and rental income had not been credited by the assessee in the profit and loss account though the same were reflected in Form No. 26AS and the credit

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

undisclosed income both under the normal provisions as well as u/s 115JB of the Act. The Ld. AO noted on comparison of ITS details as per Form No. 26AS that certain interest and rental income had not been credited by the assessee in the profit and loss account though the same were reflected in Form No. 26AS and the credit

DCIT, C.C. I, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMARNATH SHROFF, KOLKATA

In the result ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009 are allowed while ITA Nos

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

undisclosed bank accounts and seized papers/documents. Thereafter there is a reference to the Assessee’s offer to tax income to the extent mentioned above. The AO has accepted such offer to tax of income and completed the Assessment. The order of assessment makes a reference to initiation of penalty proceedings as follows :- “Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated

AMAR NATH SHROFF,KOLKATA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA

In the result ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009 are allowed while ITA Nos

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

undisclosed bank accounts and seized papers/documents. Thereafter there is a reference to the Assessee’s offer to tax income to the extent mentioned above. The AO has accepted such offer to tax of income and completed the Assessment. The order of assessment makes a reference to initiation of penalty proceedings as follows :- “Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated

INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-28, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUCHISMITA MAJUMDER, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Dr.A.L. Saini, Hon’Bleacit, Circle-28,Kolkata Vs. Suchismitamajumder, Aayakarbhawandakshin, 2, 49/58, Prince Golammd Gariahat Road (South), Shah Road, Kolkata-700033 Kolkata-700068

undisclosed commission income by holding that commission was disclosed in A.Y. 2005-06, though TDS was claimed in A.Y. 2006-07. 2.Whether