M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

260 (Koi) Pricewaterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. -vs.- ACIT [2020] 183 ITD 354 (Kolkata - Trib.) Page 33 of 41 I.T.A. No.: 1854/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 I.T.A. No.: 1899/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Tata Global Beverages Limited. 4.1 The next common issue is disallowance under section 14A of the Act while computing book profits in accordance with section 115JB

HIND CERAMICS PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), KOLKATQ

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Circle 10(1) Hind Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, P-7, 147, Nilganj Road, Belghoria, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Kolkata-700056, West Bengal Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach7998D Assessee By : S/Shri Soumitra Choudhury & P. Sarkar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Madhumita Das, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

260/- to Dalmia Jain Trust, Dalmia Manav Seva Trust, Vishwa kalyanSansthan and thus, net amount received by the assessee was ₹2,88,06,379/-, which is been offered to tax as income from the house property after claiming statutory deduction on account of Repairs @30% of Net lease rental for ₹83,38,635/-. According to the ld. AO the said

JASWANT SINGH,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 29(2),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 310/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Jaswant Singh,……………………………………Appellant 32/1A, Chakraberia Road South, Bhowanipore, Kolkata-700025, W.B. [Pan:Adnps0407P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-29(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan (Dakshin), 2, Gariahat Road, Kolkata-700031 Appearances By: Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri L.N. Dash, Addl. Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 08, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 22, 2025 O R D E R

sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued on 23.08.2018 and 28.11.2019 respectively via e-proceeding. In response to the notices, the assessee produced copy of deed of land and other deeds of nearby area. No written submission or explained was made. From the record, it was observed that the assessee’s land was acquired in respect of extension

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]

260/- vide order dated 24.12.2018 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. 5. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the order of AO by citing the same reasons. However, in stead of addition u/s 69A ,the Ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to treat the same as unexplained investments u/s 69A of the Act. 3 I.T.A. No.1294/Kol/2023

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. GOLDEN GOENKA CREDIT PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

260 of the Act dated 26.06.2024. 6.2.3. In the assessment order, the AO made the addition of Rs.49,04,77,417/- u/s 68 by treating the said unsecured loans as bogus. On perusal of the assessment order, it is observed that the AO has raised the following issues while making the said addition and treating the said unsecured loans

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]

260/-. Further the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under complete scrutiny category, a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued. Further approval was obtained from PCIT-1, for referring the case to Transfer Pricing Officer, case was referred to the TPO, consequent to the reference, the TPO forwarded the order u/s 92CA

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]

260/-. Further the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under complete scrutiny category, a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued. Further approval was obtained from PCIT-1, for referring the case to Transfer Pricing Officer, case was referred to the TPO, consequent to the reference, the TPO forwarded the order u/s 92CA

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]

260/-. Further the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under complete scrutiny category, a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued. Further approval was obtained from PCIT-1, for referring the case to Transfer Pricing Officer, case was referred to the TPO, consequent to the reference, the TPO forwarded the order u/s 92CA

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]

260/-. Further the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under complete scrutiny category, a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued. Further approval was obtained from PCIT-1, for referring the case to Transfer Pricing Officer, case was referred to the TPO, consequent to the reference, the TPO forwarded the order u/s 92CA

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]

260/-. Further the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under complete scrutiny category, a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued. Further approval was obtained from PCIT-1, for referring the case to Transfer Pricing Officer, case was referred to the TPO, consequent to the reference, the TPO forwarded the order u/s 92CA

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAJ GOENKA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2022-23 Dcit, Cc-4(3), Kolkata……...……..……….………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Raj Goenka…………………………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent 10Th Floor Magma House, 24, Park Street Park Street, Kol-16. [Pan: Adlpg8181C] Appearances By: Shri S B Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 05, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.04.2025 Of The Cit(Appeals)-27, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2022–23. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 08 Days. The Revenue Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Petition For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

capital gains in shares. It will be relevant to record that the present assessee might have been in consultation with M/s. B.C. Purohit & Company and a member of the group and has drawn inference regarding providing accommodation entries and the assessing officer was of the view that details made available by the assessee as regards unsecured loans and share application

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAJA SHELTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 133(6) to the lenders where duly acknowledged and all the\nlenders confirmed the loan transactions by filing the documents which\nwere placed before the tribunal in the form of a paper book.\nThese materials were available on the file of the Assessing Officer and\nthere is no discussion on this aspect. Thus, the tribunal rightly dismissed\nthe appeal

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

260/-. Now, Section 57 of the Act, provides for the deductions which can be claimed against the income under the head “income from other sources”. For the sake of convenience, Section 57 of the Act is reproduced below:- “Deductions. 57. The income chargeable under the head "Income from other sources" shall be computed after making the following deductions, namely

BIRENDRANATH SAMANTA,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIR-2, BURDWAN, BURDWAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 227/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Birendra Nath Samanta Assistant Commissioner Of Anandapally, Sripally Vs Income Tax, Cirlce-2, Burdwan Burdwan - 713103 [Pan : Akaps8240C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 12/05/2022 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 253 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. In The Condonation Application, The Assessee Stated That An Affidavit & An Application Has Been Filed Wherein It Has Been Submitted That The Impugned Order Was Passed On 12/05/2022 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Ex-Parte. The Said Appellate Order Was Sent Through E- Mail At Debudan1975@Gmail.Com, Which Belonged To Shri Debabrata Dan, A Resident Of Burdwan & Looking After The Income Tax Matters

gain anything from delaying this appeal. It is also pertinent to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N.Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (supra) has observed that period of delay does not matter. It is the I.T.A. No. 227/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Birendra Nath Samanta 5 quality of the explanation. If some valid reason is there

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Years: 2011-12 Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 6, Waterloo Street, Kolkata- Vs. 3(3), Kolkata. 700069. (Pan: Aaecs5627C) (Appellant) (Respondent)

260/-. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) contesting both on the legal issues as well as on the merits of the case. 4. Assessee submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) that the amount received by the assessee is towards sale of investment which had been duly accounted and reported in its audited financial statement. Assessee very

AROTO TRADE INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-9(1), KOLKATA

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

260/- declared in the e-return filed for AY 2014-15 on 27.09.2014. Case selected for scrutiny through CASS followed by serving of notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings ld. AO noticed that the share capital of the assessee including premium has increased to the tune