DCIT, CC-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KKALPANA INDUSTRIES INDIA LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.452/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Dcit, Cc-1(4), Kolkata Vs Kkalpana Industries India Ltd. 2B, Pretoria Street, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Pan No. :Aabck 2239 D (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, Ca रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 13.11.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-20, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1070338584(1), For The Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. Shri P.N.Barnwal, Ld.Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue & Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate With Ms. Puja Somani, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. 3. A Perusal Of The Appeal Record, We Find That The Appeal Of The Revenue Has Been Filed Belatedly By 28 Days. In This Regard, The Revenue Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Sufficient Reasons Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Thus, The Delay Of 28 Days In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing.

gains of business, the break-up of Rs.26.69 cr and the reasons as to why the assessee is eligible to claim the same was submitted as follows: Particulars Rs. in Remarks crores Extraordinary Item 26.69 Claim not received from the debited in profit and Insurance Company debited in profit Loss A/c (a) and Loss A/c, being loss incurred

M/S. GYANCHAND PODDAR HUF,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 43(1), , KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 271(1)(c) were applicable. 6 For that the penalty imposed is otherwise bad in law since all details and evidences to prove the capital gain were filed, the transaction was bonafide and no material as brought on record that the explanation of the assesee was not acceptable.” 2.1 Before us, the Ld. AR argued on the legal ground

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

gains from specified business as per provision of Section 80IA of the Act. His further submission is that the Ld. CIT(A) did wrong in fact and law in deleting the addition u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the Act. The Ld. D.R has further 5 I.T.A. Nos. 2456 to 2459/Kol/2024 Assessment Years

PRAMOD LAKRA,DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILIPS CARBON BLACK LTD , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

gains from specified business as per provision of Section 80IA of the Act. His further submission is that the Ld. CIT(A) did wrong in fact and law in deleting the addition u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the Act. The Ld. D.R has further 5 I.T.A. Nos. 2456 to 2459/Kol/2024 Assessment Years

PRAMOD LAKRA,DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

gains from specified business as per provision of Section 80IA of the Act. His further submission is that the Ld. CIT(A) did wrong in fact and law in deleting the addition u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the Act. The Ld. D.R has further 5 I.T.A. Nos. 2456 to 2459/Kol/2024 Assessment Years

PCBL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

gains from specified business as per provision of Section 80IA of the Act. His further submission is that the Ld. CIT(A) did wrong in fact and law in deleting the addition u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the Act. The Ld. D.R has further 5 I.T.A. Nos. 2456 to 2459/Kol/2024 Assessment Years

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

gains from specified business as per provision of Section 80IA of the Act. His further submission is that the Ld. CIT(A) did wrong in fact and law in deleting the addition u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the Act. The Ld. D.R has further 5 I.T.A. Nos. 2456 to 2459/Kol/2024 Assessment Years

M/S. BANDHAN BANK LTD. (ERSTWHILE GHOSH FINANCE LTD),KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-5(1), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2016-17

172 (SC)] (b) CIT Vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. [46 ITR 144 (SC)] (c) CIT Vs. Mogul Line Ltd. [46 ITR 590 (Bom) 8. The Ld. AO, vide paragraph 7.3 onwards of the assessment order, has discussed the matter. The Ld. AO examined the provisions of section 37 of the Act and relied upon several decisions and rejected the claim

SHREE CAPITAL SERVICES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.641/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shree Capital Services Ltd..………..……………………....………....Appellant 21, Strand Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aagcs5082D] Vs. Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata….................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Saurav Garg, 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 : June 20, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 23, 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 30.01.2024 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 Disallowance Of Rs.3,88,57,850/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Disallowance Of Expenditure Incurred For Earning Of Tax Exempt Income Invoking The Provisions Of Section 14A R.W.R 8D Of The Income Tax Rules. 3. The Assessing Officer Noted That The Assessee During The Year Had Earned Tax Exempt Income Of Rs.58,51,96,313/- Comprising Of Long- Term Capital Gains & Dividend Income. He Further Observed That The

section 14A r.w.r 8D of the Income Tax Rules. 3. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee during the year had earned tax exempt income of Rs.58,51,96,313/- comprising of long- term capital gains and dividend income. He further observed that the I.T.A. No.641/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shree Capital Services Ltd. assessee had offered disallowance

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

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

172/- for most of the period. In the ultimate analysis it is very clear that Zeus Vinimay Pvt Ltd is being used to provide accommodation entries only as is evident not only from the fact that it is not carrying out any substantial profit making business activity but also that money is received from other companies/entities and almost immediately paid

B P PODDAR HOSPITAL & MEDICAL RESEARCH LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 5(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 714/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 B.P. Poddar Hospital & Medical Research Ltd.,…………………………………………Appellant 18, Rabindra Sarani, Poddar Court, 9Th Floor, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aaccb1618G] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..Respondent Circle-5(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri A.K. Meena, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R. Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: July 01, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 02, 2024 O R D E R

172 days. In order to explain the delay, the assessee has filed an application, wherein it has pleaded that the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) was not served upon it, rather it was sent on e-Portal, but it was received in the SPAM Folder of the e-mail. Under these circumstances, the assessee could not check the impugned order

M/S PREMIER IRRIGATION ADRITEC (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

172 ITR 1 a division Bench of thiscourt held that expression "tax" for the purposes of section 179 would includea penalty. The judgement of the Division Bench cannot now be reflective of thecorrect position in law in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in HarshadShantilal Mehta case in so far as the aforesaid issue is concerned

DCIT, C.C.-3(4), KOLKATA vs. M/S TANISHQUE TRADE LINK PVT. LTD, HOWRAH

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 17/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tanishque Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata Vs Bhabatarini Apartment G.T. Road, Room No. 602 Howrah - 711201 [Pan : Aacct7512R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, Fca Revenue By : Shri Biswanath Das, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/01/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 24/09/2020, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That On Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As In Facts In Allowing The Bogus Share Capital Raised In The Books Of The Assessee Without Appreciating The Fact That The Assessee Failed To Discharge Its Primary Onus To Prove & Establish The Identity & Creditworthiness Of The Investor Companies & Genuineness Of The Transaction. 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As In Facts In Ignoring That The Identity & Creditworthiness Of The Shareholders & Even The Genuineness Of The Transactions Remained Unexplained. 3. That On Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Invoking His Powers U/S. 250(4) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 In Directing The Assessing Officer To Make Further Enquiry & Report The Results Of The

172 (Delhi) 7. We have heard rival contentions, perused the material available on record and the case-laws cited by both the sides. 8. The revenue is aggrieved with the finding of the ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the Act at Rs.9,08,00,000/- towards unexplained share capital

AURELIA HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-49(4), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1138/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Aurelia Housing Co-Perative Income Tax Officer, Ward-49(4), Society Ltd. Vs Kolkata Premises No.-30 2222, Plot No. Cd-19 Action Area-I Major Arterial Road New Town Kolkata - 700156 [Pan : Aaaba0803F] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Prabhas Roy, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/06/2024 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 (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 22/08/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. On The Previous Occasion When The Case Was Fixed For Hearing On 07/02/2024 & 23/01/2024, The Assessee Sought Adjournment. Today, There Is No Appearance. We, Therefore, Decide To Adjudicate The Appeal On The Basis Of Available Record & Hearing The Ld. D/R. 3. The Sole Issue Involved In The Instant Appeal Is The Disallowance Of Depreciation Claimed Of Rs. 33,69,260/-. Facts In Brief Are That The 2

172/-. No other business activity is being carried out. Depreciation has been claimed under the head income from other sources but no details have been filed. Considering this aspect, the ld. Assessing Officer disallowed the depreciation of Rs.33,69,260/- and assessed income at Rs.10,84,098/-. 3.1. Aggrieved the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) challenging