M/S EVAN VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,AGRA vs. PR, C.I.T.-4, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

vii) List of shareholders viii) Details of bank accounts 21. The Second AO acknowledges in his order sheet as on 19.5.2016 that he had issued summons u/s 131 of the Act and pursuant to which thirteen (9) share subscribing companies respective Directors had appeared before him on 1.06.2016, and they were examined along with their respective books of accounts

M/S BRIDHI DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD.,AGRA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

vii) List of shareholders viii) Details of bank accounts 21. The Second AO acknowledges in his order sheet as on 19.5.2016 that he had issued summons u/s 131 of the Act and pursuant to which thirteen (13) share subscribing companies respective Directors had appeared before him on 30/31.05.2016, and they were examined along with their respective books of 18 Bridhi

AMRITRASHI INFRA(P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.C.I.T.-4, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2012-13 Amritrashi Infra Private Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax- (Pan: Aakca2544E) 4, Kolkata.

vii) List of shareholders viii) Details of bank accounts 26. The AO also acknowledges in his re-assessment / second assessment order that he has examined the aforesaid details and thereafter issued notices u/s. 133(6) of the Act to all 18 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13 the shareholders and directed them to prove their identity, genuineness and creditworthiness

M/S GOODPOINT STOCKIST PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-4, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Shrigirishagrawal, Am]

vii) share holders list (viii) Bank account details. The second AO has acknowledged in his reassessment order that he has examined the details furnished before him. And that he has verified the identity, creditworthiness &genuinety of share subscribers as well as the source of fund. And he has recorded in his re-assessment/second assessment order that ShriVinay Kumar Singh

SMT. SUCHARITA KAR,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-55(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

56(2)(vii) of the Act is unjust and uncalled for .The contention of the assessing officer is opposed to requirement of law and bad in law. 5. For that disallowance of 50% expenses under the head Sales Promotion amounting to Rs.88,245/- u/s 37(1) of the Act is without having any basis, unjustified and uncalled

M/S. ARMAN ADVISORY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR. CIT-4, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am]

vii) ITR Acknowledgement and ITR-6 for the AY 2012-13 viii) Audited Balance Sheet for the financial year 2011-12 ix) Form 20-B filed before ROC x) Form-18 as address proof of respective share applicant companies. 20. The AO also acknowledges in his re-assessment second assessment order that he has examined the books of account & bank

ACIT, CIRCLLE-34, KOLKATA vs. SUBHAS KUMAR KEDIA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1677/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Acit, Circle-34, Kolkata Vs Subhas Kumar Kedia, 41, N.S.Road, Kolkata Pan No. :Afnpk 9669 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Ms. Shreya Loyalka, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 05.06.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- I) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Erred In Quashing The Order U/S.148A(D) & All Subsequent Proceedings. Ii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Failed To Acknowledge The Fact That The Assesse Had Not Expressed Any Grievance Against The Validity Of Order U/S 148A(D) By Moving Any Writ Petition Which Should Have Been Done In Case Of Any Grievance After Getting The Sald Order U/S.148A(D). Iii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Erred In Quashing The Order When The Ld. Cit(A) Has No Jurisdiction To Deal With The Question Whether The 148A(D) Order Was Passed Validly Or Properly As An Order U/S.148A(D) Is Not An Appealable Order Before Ld. Cit(A) As Per Section 246A.

vii) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, failed to acknowledge para 6.2 of the said instruction, wherein the extended reassessment notice for the A.Y.2016-17 was to be dealt as under :- Fresh notice u/s. 148 can be issued with approval of the specified authority under clause (a) of sub-section

ANIL KUMAR PAIK,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 468/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Anil Kumar Paik Acit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Vs 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor Suite No. 203 Off Hare Street Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aflpp6567R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/09/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 15/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

purchases + sundry creditors as on 31/03/2015 + labour charges + opening work in progress. We are surprised to observe such kind of working by the Assessing Officer which is dumb founded and has merely picked up certain figures from the financial statements on the closing dates to arrive at such irrelevant workings. He has failed to understand that when the assessee

ANIL KUMAR PAIK ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-8(1), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 492/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anil Kumar Paik Acit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Vs 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor Suite No. 203 Off Hare Street Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aflpp6567R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 15/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld. Commissioner, Of Income Tax (Appeals)- N.F.A.C. Acted Unlawfully In Impliedly Sustaining; The Purported Addition Of Rs. 1,67.44,907/- Made The Ld. Assistant Commissioner, Of Income Tax, Circle 8(1) Kolkata By Invoking The Mischief U/S. 43Ca Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Without Satisfying The Parameters Thereof & The Adverse Conclusion Reached On That Behalf In Violation Of The Statutory Prescription Is Completely Unfounded, Unjustified & Untenable In Law. 2. For That The Specious Approach Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-N.F.A,C. Of Misreading Evidence, Considering Improper Facts

bogus, rather, the payment of consideration in this case has been settled and paid as per the terms of the agreement. Under the circumstances, in the peculiar I.T.A No.354/Kol/2023 Assessment year: 2015-16 M/s Reegal Construction facts and circumstances, it will not be justified to adopt the stamp duty value as on the date of execution of the sale deed

ITO, WARD - 13(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GOURI NANDAN REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD.,, HOWRAH

In the result, we uphold the same and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

56(2)(vii) has also been relied upon. Case of Jatia Investment Company of Calcutta High Court reported in 206 ITR page 7-8 delivered on the provisions of section-68 has also been relied upon wherein sum has been defined as money and has been held that section 68 applies only when cash is received and entered into books

OVERTOP VINCOM PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 7(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2012-13

bogus unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the Act learned CIT-DR submitted in support of the impugned addition that it has failed to prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of its investor parties. His further case is that the assessee had also not put in appearance before the CIT(A) as well despite having been afforded adequate opportunities of hearing

M/S SWIFT VINTRADE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. CIT, KOLKATA-1I, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10

56 (2) of the IT Act had come into effect only from assessment year 2013-14 that there was no yard stick either in the Company's Act or in the Income tax Act to fix or regulate share premium. iii) That the A.O. had conducted proper inquiry regarding the identity and creditworthiness of the shareholders. Confirmation letters along with

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

bogus and such action is bad in law and in view of the facts and in the circumstances the addition so made is liable to be deleted and it may be held accordingly. 16. Without prejudice to Grounds No. 14 & 15 above, the payment made to the said vendor (i.e. Reeja Trading Private Ltd.) were through banking channel

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3.1, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

bogus and such action is bad in law and in view of the facts and in the circumstances the addition so made is liable to be deleted and it may be held accordingly. 16. Without prejudice to Grounds No. 14 & 15 above, the payment made to the said vendor (i.e. Reeja Trading Private Ltd.) were through banking channel

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

bogus and such action is bad in law and in view of the facts and in the circumstances the addition so made is liable to be deleted and it may be held accordingly. 16. Without prejudice to Grounds No. 14 & 15 above, the payment made to the said vendor (i.e. Reeja Trading Private Ltd.) were through banking channel

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

bogus and such action is bad in law and in view of the facts and in the circumstances the addition so made is liable to be deleted and it may be held accordingly. 16. Without prejudice to Grounds No. 14 & 15 above, the payment made to the said vendor (i.e. Reeja Trading Private Ltd.) were through banking channel

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1),, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

bogus and such action is bad in law and in view of the facts and in the circumstances the addition so made is liable to be deleted and it may be held accordingly. 16. Without prejudice to Grounds No. 14 & 15 above, the payment made to the said vendor (i.e. Reeja Trading Private Ltd.) were through banking channel

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

bogus and such action is bad in law and in view of the facts and in the circumstances the addition so made is liable to be deleted and it may be held accordingly. 16. Without prejudice to Grounds No. 14 & 15 above, the payment made to the said vendor (i.e. Reeja Trading Private Ltd.) were through banking channel