LEMONGRASS DEALTRADE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. -5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

264 on 27.07.2016. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 after the AO received information that the assessee is beneficiary of accommodation entry from M/S Bhagyshree Vincom Pvt Ltd who has applied for 59000 equity shares . The AO finally made addition of Rs. 59,00,000/- vide order dated 27.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3)/147

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. BHAWANI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., HOWRAH

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

bogus Share Capital under Section 68. The assessment was set aside by the PCIT, Hazaribagh vide his order u/s 264 of the Act dated 18-01- 2017, with a direction to the Assessing Officer to reframe the assessment de novo after making enquiry regarding genuineness and source of the share capital. The scrutiny assessment order was framed by the DCIT

NARAYAN SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

purchase of\nshares.\nIt is, therefore, clear that there was no lawful application of the mind\nby the AO on the information received by him nor he has made any\nenquiry to show that whatever stated in the reasons was believable.\nThe AO in the reasons has stated that the information was received\nfrom the Pr. Director of Income

BALHANUMAN COMMODEAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(4), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13

bogus and unexplained cash credit in its books as per the provisions of section 68 of 1.T. Act., but the assessee failed to put forward any explanation till the date of passing of this order. From the aforesaid facts and discussion, it is evident that assessee has no explanation to offer in this regard which reveals that the assessee

M/S. NISHIT AGARWAL BENEFICIARY TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC - 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

bogus or accommodation in nature. No such exercises have been carried out at any stage by the Revenue authority. Though the assessee has placed material on record to show that on merits also the case of the assessee is strong and the alleged transactions have been carried out through banking channel as well as through recognised stock exchange and demat

PINKY AGARWAL ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

bogus or accommodation in nature. No such exercises have been carried out at any stage by the Revenue authority. Though the assessee has placed material on record to show that on merits also the case of the assessee is strong and the alleged transactions have been carried out through banking channel as well as through recognised stock exchange and demat

PRATIK AGARWAL BENEFICIARY TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, C.C.-3(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

bogus or accommodation in nature. No such exercises have been carried out at any stage by the Revenue authority. Though the assessee has placed material on record to show that on merits also the case of the assessee is strong and the alleged transactions have been carried out through banking channel as well as through recognised stock exchange and demat

M/S. GATEWAY FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC - 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

bogus or accommodation in nature. No such exercises have been carried out at any stage by the Revenue authority. Though the assessee has placed material on record to show that on merits also the case of the assessee is strong and the alleged transactions have been carried out through banking channel as well as through recognised stock exchange and demat

HILTON COMMODITIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Hilton Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward 5(3) 9/12, Lal Bazar Street, Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Mercantile Building, Block-B, Chowringhee Square, Vs. 3Rd Floor, No.10, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacch1011P Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Ar Revenue By : Shri S Datta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025

Purchase P. Limited (supra). The Hon'ble Court has held as under:- “We have heard Ms. Smita Das De, learned senior standing counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. Abhratosh Majumdar, learned senior advocate appearing for the respondent/assessee. The short question which falls for consideration is whether the learned Tribunal was right in affirming the order passed by the Commissioner

SILKINA COMMODEAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

264 ITR 254, the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court has thrown light on another aspect touching the issue of onus on assessee under section 68, by holding that the same should be decided by taking into consideration the provision of section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that a person can be required to prove only such facts which

SILKINA COMMODEAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

264 ITR 254, the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court has thrown light on another aspect touching the issue of onus on assessee under section 68, by holding that the same should be decided by taking into consideration the provision of section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that a person can be required to prove only such facts which

SILKINA COMMODEAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

264 ITR 254, the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court has thrown light on another aspect touching the issue of onus on assessee under section 68, by holding that the same should be decided by taking into consideration the provision of section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that a person can be required to prove only such facts which

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. BHAWANI ALUMINA PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., HOWRAH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

bogus in nature and accordingly added back u/s 68 of the Act. Penalty proceedings has also been initiated. 3. The assessee company preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee company preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-5, Kolkata and communicated about the same before the DCIT, Circle-13(1), Kolkata on 18.05.2015 and made request

QUEST ONLINE ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-49(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.1046/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Quest Online…………………………………...............................……….……Appellant Block-A, 3Rd Floor, Room No.24, 1, Chandni Chowk Street, Princep Street, Kolkata – 700072. [Pan:Aaafq4820G] Vs. Ito, Ward-49(1),Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate & Sunil Surana, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Datta, Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 02, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 03, 2024 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2020-21Against The Order Dated 08.09.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Only Issue Raised In The Various Grounds Of Appeals Is Against The Confirmation Of Addition By Cit(A) Of Rs.14,82,41,932/- As Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 68 Of The Act R.W.S. 115Bbe Of The Act. 3. The Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 09.01.2021 Declaring Total Income From Business & Profession At Rs.36,73,790/-. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Under Cass & Statutory Notices Were Duly Issued & Served Upon The Assessee. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Various Documents & Evidences Were Called For By The Assessing Officer From The Assessee

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, suggests that (i) there has to be credit of amounts in the books maintained by an assessee; (ii) such credit has to be of a sum during the previous year; and (iii) either (a) the assessee offer no explanation about the nature and source of such credit found in the books