NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 147 of the I.T. Act. This is for your information and necessary compliance. Please note that in case of any objection against above mentioned reason recorded, you are requested to submit your written objection within three (03) days from receipt of this letter.” 7. It was also submitted that summons u/s 131 of the Act were issued to Ambika

NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 147 of the I.T. Act. This is for your information and necessary compliance. Please note that in case of any objection against above mentioned reason recorded, you are requested to submit your written objection within three (03) days from receipt of this letter.” 7. It was also submitted that summons u/s 131 of the Act were issued to Ambika

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. VEDA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

340/- as long term capital gain as against the "Income from business" assessed by the A. O. ? (b) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in holding that principle of consistency must be applied here as & CO Nos. 153 & 154/Kol/2010 Veda Commercial

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. VEDA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

340/- as long term capital gain as against the "Income from business" assessed by the A. O. ? (b) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in holding that principle of consistency must be applied here as & CO Nos. 153 & 154/Kol/2010 Veda Commercial

ACIT, CIRCLE - 11(2) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SAFAL PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

Bogus Purchase related to the earlier issue of undisclosed stock, which is related in nature. The Ld. CIT(A) should have referred this issue also to the AO for verification and furnishing Remand Report. 6. That the appellant craves to add, alter/or amend any of the grounds of appeal during the course of hearing.” 3. Brief facts of the case

AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 4(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

bogus purchases." 8.2.6. Further, reliance is also placed in the case of 'M/S. Alokik Steels Pvt. Ltd Village vs Principal Commissioner Of Income on 3 March, 2021, ITA No. 861/JP/2019', the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur had held as under:- "Further, there is no dispute regarding the quantum of unaccounted turnover of Rs 1,77,95,859. The assessee has declared

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

bogus purchases." 8.2.6. Further, reliance is also placed in the case of 'M/S. Alokik Steels Pvt. Ltd Village vs Principal Commissioner Of Income on 3 March, 2021, ITA No. 861/JP/2019', the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur had held as under:- "Further, there is no dispute regarding the quantum of unaccounted turnover of Rs 1,77,95,859. The assessee has declared

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

bogus purchases." 8.2.6. Further, reliance is also placed in the case of 'M/S. Alokik Steels Pvt. Ltd Village vs Principal Commissioner Of Income on 3 March, 2021, ITA No. 861/JP/2019', the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur had held as under:- "Further, there is no dispute regarding the quantum of unaccounted turnover of Rs 1,77,95,859. The assessee has declared

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

bogus purchases." 8.2.6. Further, reliance is also placed in the case of 'M/S. Alokik Steels Pvt. Ltd Village vs Principal Commissioner Of Income on 3 March, 2021, ITA No. 861/JP/2019', the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur had held as under:- "Further, there is no dispute regarding the quantum of unaccounted turnover of Rs 1,77,95,859. The assessee has declared

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMAR KUMAR AGARAWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

bogus purchases." 8.2.6. Further, reliance is also placed in the case of 'M/S. Alokik Steels Pvt. Ltd Village vs Principal Commissioner Of Income on 3 March, 2021, ITA No. 861/JP/2019', the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur had held as under:- "Further, there is no dispute regarding the quantum of unaccounted turnover of Rs 1,77,95,859. The assessee has declared

SHARAD KUMAR SINGH,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 37(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Acit, Sharad Kumar Singh Circle-3(1), Income Tax Office 10A, Norode Behari Mullick Road, 3, Government Place, Vs. Kolkata-700006, West Bengal West Bengal-700001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Alqps3842K Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kapil Mondal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.09.2025

340 and CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd., in ITA No. 330 of 2012 vide order dated 23.07.2014, wherein it has been held that if the interest free funds available with the assessee are more than the interest free loans given then no disallowance is called for. Therefore, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT (A) and direct

ITO, WARD - 8(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. AAR BEE MACHINERIES PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Aby T. Varkey]

340/-. It is a well settled legal proposition that there cannot be a sale without any corresponding purchase. To extend the said analogy in this case it can be said that if no services were rendered by M/s. Spring Vincom Pvt. Ltd. then no services were performed by the appellant company for M/s. MCIPL because the duty to give

M/S. SHANKER LOGISTICES (P) LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-7(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.829/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Shankar Logistics (P) Ltd.….…….…............…...……………....Appellant 207, Maharshi Divendra Road, West Bengal-700007. [Pan: Aajcs8693P] Vs. Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata….....…........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 10, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 08, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.06.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.85,98,795/- By The Ld. Cit(A) As Made By The Assessing Officer Treating The Unsecured Loans Taken By The Assessee As Bogus & Thereby Making The Addition Of The Aforesaid Amount As Unexplained Income Of The Assessee. The Assessee Apart From Challenging The Additions On Merits Has Also Contested The Validity Of The Reopening Of The Assessment.

purchases or payment entries from these shell companies. 4. Basis of Forming reason to believe and details of escapement of income: There is specific information that the aforementioned companies are shell companies which provide accommodation entries to the various beneficiaries. Perusal of the bank accounts of the companies reveals that M/s Shanker Logistics Pvt. Ltd. was a beneficiary

M/S. SUBHLABH STEELS (P) LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 1, , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2047/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2013-14)

section 263 of the Income Tax Act on the following grounds: “From the assessment order for the year 2013-14, it is seen that the books of accounts of the assessee was rejected as because the assessee company failed to produce copies of bills for purchases and sales as well as could not produce anydocuments in support of M/s Subhlabh

KAMAL SINGH KUNDALIA,SILIGURI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(4), SILIGURI, SILIGURI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2014-15 Kamal Sinigh Kundalia V/S. Income Tax Officer, C/O Pradip Lakhotia, 2Nd Ward-1(4), Aayakar Floor, Metro Plaza, Sf Bhawana, Matigara, Road, Siliguri-734005 Siliguri-734010 [Pan No.Akupk 1029 R] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Dhiraj Lakhotia, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl-Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 07-02-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 08-05-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Siliguri’S Order Dated 29.08.2017 Passed In Case No.49/Cit(A)/Slg/2016-17, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. The Assessee’S Detailed Paper Book Comprising Of Bank Statement (For The Period Of 01.04.2011 To 31.03.2012), Share Certificate In This Taxpayer’S Name Dated 31.12.2011, Allotment Letter Of 15,000 Shares Of Cressanda Solutions After Due Approval Of Hon'Ble Bombay High Court Dated 21.02.2013, Show-Cause Notice, Demat Account With The Broker Firm & Contract Notes Etc.; Stands Perused.

purchased share of “Smartschamps IT and infra Limited” of Rs.1,50,000/- which subsequently got merge to M/s Cressenda Solution Pvt. Ltd. Perusal of the fact shows that the statement of Sh. Narendra Jain and Sh. Pankaj Agarwal provided to the appellant. The appellant has simply relied on the agreement that the duo have not taken the name

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

SOUMITRA CHOUDHURY ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 22 , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Years :2012-13 Soumitra Choudhury V/S. Acit, Circle-12 28C, Satish Mukherjee 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Road, Kolkata-700026 Kidwai Road, [Pan No.Acnpc 4627 Q] Kolkarta-16 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Miraj D Shah, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sankar Halder, Jcit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 13-03-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing Assessment Year :2015-16 Purushottam Das Agarwal V/S. Income Tax Officer, C/O Balaji Enterprises, Ward-35(1), Aayakar 83/85 N.S. Road, Ground Bhawan Porva, 110, Floor, Kolkata Shantipally, Kokata- [Pan No.Actpa 9138 Q] 107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Subash Agarwal Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sankar Halder, Jcit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 14-03-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 15-03-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- These Two Assessees Have Filed Their Instant Appeal(S) For Assessment Year(S) 2012-13 & 2015-16 Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax

340 ITR 161 (P&H) ITA No.256/Kol/2019 & 2421/Kol/2018 A.Ys 12-13 & 15-16 Soumitra Choudhury Vs. ACIT, Cir-22, Kol Purushottam Das Agarwal Vs. ITO Wd-35(1) Kol. Page 7 Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained investment - Assessment year 1998-99 - During assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer found that assessee had purchased certain shares of a company

PURUSHOTTAM DAS AGARWAL ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 35(1) , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Years :2012-13 Soumitra Choudhury V/S. Acit, Circle-12 28C, Satish Mukherjee 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Road, Kolkata-700026 Kidwai Road, [Pan No.Acnpc 4627 Q] Kolkarta-16 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Miraj D Shah, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sankar Halder, Jcit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 13-03-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing Assessment Year :2015-16 Purushottam Das Agarwal V/S. Income Tax Officer, C/O Balaji Enterprises, Ward-35(1), Aayakar 83/85 N.S. Road, Ground Bhawan Porva, 110, Floor, Kolkata Shantipally, Kokata- [Pan No.Actpa 9138 Q] 107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Subash Agarwal Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sankar Halder, Jcit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 14-03-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 15-03-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- These Two Assessees Have Filed Their Instant Appeal(S) For Assessment Year(S) 2012-13 & 2015-16 Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax

340 ITR 161 (P&H) ITA No.256/Kol/2019 & 2421/Kol/2018 A.Ys 12-13 & 15-16 Soumitra Choudhury Vs. ACIT, Cir-22, Kol Purushottam Das Agarwal Vs. ITO Wd-35(1) Kol. Page 7 Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained investment - Assessment year 1998-99 - During assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer found that assessee had purchased certain shares of a company

SHYAMA AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-3(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of all the captioned assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

340/-. The assessee has claimed long-term capital gain of Rs.73,97,001/- on sale of shares of Unno Industries Limited as exempt under section 10(38) of the Act. In this respect, the assessee had initially purchased 2,38,000 shares of the Company called “Basukinath Real Estate Limited for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- @ Rs.1.3 per share