MANOJ BEGANI,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-44, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 11. We note that other than aforesaid reason, no other statements of Shri Rajendra Jain or another were furnished to the assessee, despite they asking for it, which the Ld. CIT(A) at page 60 justified the omission of AO by stating that “the relevant material relating to appellant were already included

MANOJ BEGANI,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-44, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 11. We note that other than aforesaid reason, no other statements of Shri Rajendra Jain or another were furnished to the assessee, despite they asking for it, which the Ld. CIT(A) at page 60 justified the omission of AO by stating that “the relevant material relating to appellant were already included

MANOJ BEGANI,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-44, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 11. We note that other than aforesaid reason, no other statements of Shri Rajendra Jain or another were furnished to the assessee, despite they asking for it, which the Ld. CIT(A) at page 60 justified the omission of AO by stating that “the relevant material relating to appellant were already included

MANOJ BEGANI,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-44, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 11. We note that other than aforesaid reason, no other statements of Shri Rajendra Jain or another were furnished to the assessee, despite they asking for it, which the Ld. CIT(A) at page 60 justified the omission of AO by stating that “the relevant material relating to appellant were already included

MANOJ BEGANI,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-44, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 11. We note that other than aforesaid reason, no other statements of Shri Rajendra Jain or another were furnished to the assessee, despite they asking for it, which the Ld. CIT(A) at page 60 justified the omission of AO by stating that “the relevant material relating to appellant were already included

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALAJEE MINI STEELS & REROLLING PRIVATE LIMITED , PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: Theseare appeals preferred by the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kolkata-27 (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 13.04.2025 for the AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19. 2. As the facts and issues in all the appeals of Revenue are exactly identical, hence

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND CEMENT & ROOFINGS PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

E. 1595/KOL/2025 (Revenue’s appeal) 14. The issue raised by the Revenue in ground no.1 is against the restriction of addition to the tune of ₹22,54,000/- by the ld. CIT (A) as against the addition made by the ld. AO of ₹2,87,50,000/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 14.1. Since

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND SPONGE AND IRON PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

E. 1595/KOL/2025 (Revenue’s appeal) 14. The issue raised by the Revenue in ground no.1 is against the restriction of addition to the tune of ₹22,54,000/- by the ld. CIT (A) as against the addition made by the ld. AO of ₹2,87,50,000/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 14.1. Since

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND CEMENT & ROOFINGS PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

E. 1595/KOL/2025 (Revenue’s appeal) 14. The issue raised by the Revenue in ground no.1 is against the restriction of addition to the tune of ₹22,54,000/- by the ld. CIT (A) as against the addition made by the ld. AO of ₹2,87,50,000/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 14.1. Since

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND CEMENT & ROOFINGS PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

E. 1595/KOL/2025 (Revenue’s appeal) 14. The issue raised by the Revenue in ground no.1 is against the restriction of addition to the tune of ₹22,54,000/- by the ld. CIT (A) as against the addition made by the ld. AO of ₹2,87,50,000/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 14.1. Since

GOPAL & SONS HUF,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 32(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

E. 1595/KOL/2025 (Revenue’s appeal) 14. The issue raised by the Revenue in ground no.1 is against the restriction of addition to the tune of ₹22,54,000/- by the ld. CIT (A) as against the addition made by the ld. AO of ₹2,87,50,000/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 14.1. Since

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

22,967/- from Majee Group, ignoring\nthat the assessee failed to explain the source of funds for such\npurchases, attracting Section 69C, and the entire amount\nrepresents unexplained expenditure out of undisclosed income,\nas per seized documents (Tally backups from Niraj Singh's\npremises).\n2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC - 3(3),, KOLKATA

22,967/- from Majee Group, ignoring\nthat the assessee failed to explain the source of funds for such\npurchases, attracting Section 69C, and the entire amount\nrepresents unexplained expenditure out of undisclosed income,\nas per seized documents (Tally backups from Niraj Singh's\npremises).\n2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), , KOLKATA

22,967/- from Majee Group, ignoring\nthat the assessee failed to explain the source of funds for such\npurchases, attracting Section 69C, and the entire amount\nrepresents unexplained expenditure out of undisclosed income,\nas per seized documents (Tally backups from Niraj Singh's\npremises).\n2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition

MANISH CHAND AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 40, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy& Sri Aby T. Varkey] I.T.A. No. 371/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & I.T.A. No. 372/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :- Both these appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate but identical orders of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata, (hereinafter the ‘ld. CIT (A)’), passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), dt. 11/11/2016. 2. As the issues arising in both these appeals are identical

MANISH CHAND AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 40, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy& Sri Aby T. Varkey] I.T.A. No. 371/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & I.T.A. No. 372/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :- Both these appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate but identical orders of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata, (hereinafter the ‘ld. CIT (A)’), passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), dt. 11/11/2016. 2. As the issues arising in both these appeals are identical

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), , KOLKATA

22,967/- from Majee Group, ignoring\nthat the assessee failed to explain the source of funds for such\npurchases, attracting Section 69C, and the entire amount\nrepresents unexplained expenditure out of undisclosed income,\nas per seized documents (Tally backups from Niraj Singh's\npremises).\n2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND SPONGE AND IRON PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

e.\n2,04,50,000/- Rs.83,00,000/-) for the subjected AY 2015-16 and those are not\nrecorded in the books of account of the assessee for the said year.\n6. 2. 2. However, the stand of the AO was also not accepted as when the assessee had\nhimself admitted the fact that these purported cash entries were related

D.C.I.T., CC - 3(1),, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

22,967/- from Majee Group, ignoring\nthat the assessee failed to explain the source of funds for such\npurchases, attracting Section 69C, and the entire amount\nrepresents unexplained expenditure out of undisclosed income,\nas per seized documents (Tally backups from Niraj Singh's\npremises).\n2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition