SRI SUDIPTA GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-15, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, I.T.A. No. 583/Kol/2016, Assessment Year: 2007-08, is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble]

unexplained investments in the case of the major son Sri Abhishek Ghosh. 44.1. In this case, the bank account of Sri Abhishek Ghosh, the bank account of Sri Abhishek Ghosh, was covered by the statement submitted by Smt. Kajal Ghosh, and the bank balance was taken by her in her balance sheet. The source of deposit in this bank account

SRI SUDIPTA GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-15, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, I.T.A. No. 583/Kol/2016, Assessment Year: 2007-08, is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble]

unexplained investments in the case of the major son Sri Abhishek Ghosh. 44.1. In this case, the bank account of Sri Abhishek Ghosh, the bank account of Sri Abhishek Ghosh, was covered by the statement submitted by Smt. Kajal Ghosh, and the bank balance was taken by her in her balance sheet. The source of deposit in this bank account

SRI SUDIPTA GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-15, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, I.T.A. No. 583/Kol/2016, Assessment Year: 2007-08, is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble]

unexplained investments in the case of the major son Sri Abhishek Ghosh. 44.1. In this case, the bank account of Sri Abhishek Ghosh, the bank account of Sri Abhishek Ghosh, was covered by the statement submitted by Smt. Kajal Ghosh, and the bank balance was taken by her in her balance sheet. The source of deposit in this bank account

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. INDUSTRIAL SAFETY PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. (Shri) Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

TDS was Rs. 7,07,027/-. After the assessment, there was a demand of Rs. 1,06,834/-, though the assessment was completed as per the returned income of the assessee including the undisclosed stock accounted and added in income. This show that the assessee has not deposited the entire tax and interest on the disclosed income. Hence, it falls

DCIT, CIRCLE -8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. WEST BENGAL LOTTERY STOCKISTS SYNDICATE(P)LTD, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, A.M. & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, J.M.)

invest their money to such chance factor. The Assessing Officer did not point out any other eventuality for such winning ticket. Therefore, the winning tickets arc definitely out of unsold stock which is an incidental activity of the business. The Assessing Officer mentioned in his order that "From the facts on record, it is noticed that the assessee company

M/S ASHIM KUMAR CHATTERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-WD-54(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2010-11

TDS deduction. We find force in the argument of the ld AR but at the same time the gamut of the facts of the case needs verification. On this proposition the learned DR fairly did not dispute the same but prayed to restore the matter to the file of the assessing officer for the necessary verification on this aspect

SHRI RAKESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY,DURGAPUR vs. ACIT, CIR-DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

invested funds in various items. Having no receivable does not justify the conclusion that assessee will not be able to pay, or this liability tantamount to be bogus if there is no corresponding receivable from the same job, is not correct. What was required is that to examine the source of payments in the respective years

ACIT, CIR-1, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR vs. SHRI RAKESH KUMAR CHOWDHURY, DURGAPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

invested funds in various items. Having no receivable does not justify the conclusion that assessee will not be able to pay, or this liability tantamount to be bogus if there is no corresponding receivable from the same job, is not correct. What was required is that to examine the source of payments in the respective years

DIPAK CHOWDHURY,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 40(1),KOLKATA., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

unexplained investment. 5. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to decide on the ground raised by the assessee for charging of interest under section 234A and section 234B of the Act.“ 4. The first issue in relation to grounds No. 1 to 3 raised in this appeal is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action

DIPAK CHOWDHURY,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 40(1),KOLKATA., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

unexplained investment. 5. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to decide on the ground raised by the assessee for charging of interest under section 234A and section 234B of the Act.“ 4. The first issue in relation to grounds No. 1 to 3 raised in this appeal is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action

SEIKH ABDUL SABIR GOLAHAT NIMTALA MASJID,BURDWAN vs. CIT(A), BURDWAN

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

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

unexplained investments in FD and interest/Finance Charges paid to Bank. The tribunal also made an observation that the AO will examine all the interconnected issues as per law (Paragraph 3 at Page-4 of the order). While dealing with the issues for AY 07-08, vide Paragraph 10, the Tribunal specifically made the following observations: “10. We now advert

SEIKH ABDUL SABIR GOLAHAT NIMTALA MASJID,BURDWAN vs. CIT(A), BURDWAN

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

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

unexplained investments in FD and interest/Finance Charges paid to Bank. The tribunal also made an observation that the AO will examine all the interconnected issues as per law (Paragraph 3 at Page-4 of the order). While dealing with the issues for AY 07-08, vide Paragraph 10, the Tribunal specifically made the following observations: “10. We now advert

GAUTAM DUTTA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 18(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am]

unexplained investment. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who confirmed the action of AO. Aggrieved the assessee is before us. 2.2. We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We note that the assessee, Shri Gautam Dutta is an employee of State Bank of India, Main Branch, Kolkata

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.”

unexplained investment u/s. 69C of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT(A) assessee has made several submission as detailed under:- i) The statement was recorded u/s.131 / 133A of the Act under duress and therefore it was not confessed that there is under valuation of closing stock; ii) The question

MANNA BRICKS MANUFACTURING & TRADING PVT. LTD.,MIDNAPORE(W) vs. JCIT, RANGE-2, MIDNAPORE, MIDNAPORE

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.389/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Manna Bricks Manufacturing Vs. Jcit, Range – 2 & Trading Pvt. Ltd. Midnapore Vill: Sheulipur, P.O. Mohar, Dist Midnapore (W), West Bengal, Pin – 721161. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecm 9769 R (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

investment of the share capital from unexplained source of income of the assessee company, so the said amount was added to the total income. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, the assessee is in before us. 5.2 We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We note that the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1) , KOLKATA vs. P L G POWER LTD, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Dy. Cit, Circle 5(1) Plg Power Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, 8 Th Floor, 6Th Floor, 11 Pollock Street P7, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Kolkata-700069 Kolkata-700001, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacg9903B Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri B. Satyanarayana Raju, Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2025

investment in inventory might have been made out of the money added u/s 68 on account of PLG Power Ltd.; A.Y. 2009-10 unexplained liability. The Assessing Officer passing the order and the Assessing officer sending the remand report has not provided any reason on explanation otherthan the non-compliance by the assessee. In view of these facts and availability

ARABINDA PAUL.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT,KOL-5, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Pcit, Kolkata-5, Arabinda Paul Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Shanti Pally, Eastern Advocates 2, Garstin Place, 2 Nd Metropolitan By Pass, Vs. Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Kolkata-700107 Street, Kolkata-700001 West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adwpp7060B Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.01.2025

investments, TDS deduction certificate u/s 194A of the Act and concluded that omission on the part of the AO to do so has resulted in under assessment of income of an unexplained

M/S UMANAND RICE MILL LTD. ,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIR.-2, BURDWAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

investments besides making additions grossprofits and unexplained stocks in the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 28.03.2014. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate proceedings came to the conclusion that Rs. 50 Lakhs which was disclosed by the assessee during survey operation is required to be added to the income of the assessee on the ground