TANVEER ALAM,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-32(4), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Am Tanveer Alam Income Tax Officer, 45/Aa, Shamsul Huda Road 10B, Middleton Row, Vs. Kolkata-700017, West Bengal Kolkata-700071, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acgpa7829R Assessee By : Shri G. Banerjee, Ar Revenue By : Shri Nicholas Murmu, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2025

demonetization period and deduction/ exemption from capital gains. The notice u/s 143(2) has been served but the assessee did not make

SRI RUDRAPRASAD MANDAL,MEDINIPUR vs. DCIT, CIR. 27(1), HALDIA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

demonetization period. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO has enquired into the issues of cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000/- as well as the sundry creditors outstanding. The AO made two additions (i) of Rs. 43,37,528/- on account of cash payments u/s 40A(3) and(ii) sundry creditors mismatch of Rs. 2,00,000/- after

ASHOK VIKRAM PODDAR,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE -34, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

capital gain and other sources. We note that the assessee has withdrawn Rs. 20.00 Lacs from its saving bank account with Allahabad Bank, Raipur and again redeposited Rs. 19.75 Lacs on various dates. The gap between the withdrawals of the money and redeposits in the same bank account range between nine days to three months. The details of the cash

YAMINI ARJAN BHARWANI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 30(1), , KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: April 1, 2012. No restriction on the premium-to-sum assured ratio was there. The policy was purchased by appellant on 29.01.2011 For exemption under Section 10(10D), the amount must be received as part of a matured policy or a payment on the occurrence of a specified contingency (e.g., death of the insured). In the case of premature termination (e.g. surrender of ULIP), the exemption will still be available if the conditions (e.g, death of the insured) above are met. Presently, the pre matu

demonetization period was accepted as explained on account of sums received through termination of the life insurance policy. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the denial of exemption u/s 10(10D) of the Act on the basis of following findings: “4.4 As regards, the grounds relating to the Ld. ITO has erred in adding the cash deposit as unexplained

JALUIDANGA PASCHIM NASARATPUR SAMABY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LIMITED,BARDHAMAN, WEST BENGAL vs. INCOME TAX OPPFICER, WARD-1(3), BURDWAN

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

gains of business or profession. The double addition were made by Learned Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) Burdwan which is completely Bad in Law. The disallowable provisions, which has already been added with the net profit has again added by learned Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) Burdwan and shown as Issue No-01 Sl.No. Particulars Amount

THE BANK OF TOKYO-MITSUBISHI LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADIT, INT. TAX., KOLKATA

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

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

gains of business or profession. The double addition were made by Learned Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) Burdwan which is completely Bad in Law. The disallowable provisions, which has already been added with the net profit has again added by learned Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) Burdwan and shown as Issue No-01 Sl.No. Particulars Amount

AIHO SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD.,MALDA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), MALDA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.129/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Aiho Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd..……………....………....Appellant Jadab Nagar, Aiho Maldah – 732121. [Pan: Aabaa0284A] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Malda….….................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, 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 : May 28, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 30 , 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee-Society Against The Order Dated 29.11.2023 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-Society In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Action Of The A.O (Cpc) In Not Granting The Benefit Of Deduction U/S 80(P) To The Tune Of Rs.35,83,555/- In Respect Of Income Earned From Deposits With Bank From Non-Agricultural Purposes. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Action Of The A.O (Cpc) To Disallowance Of The Cash Deposit During The Demonetization Period Amounting To Rs.1,86,30,500/- & Wrongly Added Total Rs.2,22,14,055 As Taxable Income.

demonetization period.” Ground No.1 – The assessee vide Ground no.1 has agitated 3. against the non-grant of benefit of deduction u/s 80P of the Act in respect of income earned from deposits with bank. The assessee claimed deduction in respect of interest income earned from the activity which was done for non-agricultural purposes. The Assessing Officer has discussed this