SMT. MADHU CHHANDA SIRKAR,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1704/Kol/2011 and ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Smt. Madhumita Roy, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2007-08

delay is condoned. 3. In the instant appeal the assessee has come up before us with the following revised grounds :- “1. For that on the facts of the case, the order passed by the Ld. C.LT.(A) on 30.06.2011 is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. 2. For that on the facts of the case. Ld. C.I.T.(A) was wrong

DCIT, CIRCLE - 50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SMT. MADHU CHANDA SIRKAR, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1704/Kol/2011 and ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Smt. Madhumita Roy, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2007-08

delay is condoned. 3. In the instant appeal the assessee has come up before us with the following revised grounds :- “1. For that on the facts of the case, the order passed by the Ld. C.LT.(A) on 30.06.2011 is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. 2. For that on the facts of the case. Ld. C.I.T.(A) was wrong

SMT MADHU CHHANDA SIRKAR,KOLKATA vs. CIT-XVII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1704/Kol/2011 and ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Smt. Madhumita Roy, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2007-08

delay is condoned. 3. In the instant appeal the assessee has come up before us with the following revised grounds :- “1. For that on the facts of the case, the order passed by the Ld. C.LT.(A) on 30.06.2011 is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. 2. For that on the facts of the case. Ld. C.I.T.(A) was wrong

BABA IRON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-9(1), KOLKATA., KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

condonation of delay). After taking note of all these details, he has not issued either notice u/s 133(6) of the Act or summons u/s 131 of the Act. He simply reproduced the details of certain investor companies which read as under and formed an opinion that all these transactions are bogus: Page 6 of 13 I.T.A. No.: 925/KOL/2023 Assessment

HIMADRI VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, (OSD), WARD-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

unexplained. The said order has been placed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) wherein appeal of the assessee has been dismissed on the ground of delay of 91 days. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the present appeal has been preferred. 1.2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee challenges the impugned order thereby submitting that

SATYANARAYAN HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(2), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.444/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13

condone the delay of 1472 days and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 7. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1.For that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.1,64,00,000/- made by the AO on account of share capital including share premium by wrongly invoking the provisions of section

SWAPAN CHANDRA MANDAL,PURULIA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(3), PURULIA, PURULIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 131/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Swapan Chandra Mandal,.......................Appellant Village & P.O. Chelyama, District- Purulia-723145 [Pan: Akepm1916H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,..............................Respondent Ward-3(3), Purulia, I.T. Office Building, South Lake Road, Purulia-723101 Appearances By: Shri P.J. Bhide, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Altaf Hossain, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 11, 2024 O R D E R

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 8. Before proceeding further, we would like to take note of the complete assessment order, which is a non-speaking and sketchy one. It reads as under:- “Return of income for the A.Y. 2011-12 was electronically furnished on 20.03.2017 disclosing total income

M/S. GOLDLINE DEALERS PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 9(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Rajesh Kumar

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 6. The assessee has taken 7 grounds of appeal. However, all the grounds are theoretical and peripheral in nature without specifically pointing out the grievance. In brief, the grievance is that ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,70,26,000/- added

SRI KARTICK KAITY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as that of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] I.T.A. No. 2047/Kol/2014 Assessment Year 2010-11 Shri Kartick Kaity.............................……………………………………………..Appellant C/O. V.N. Purohit & Co., Chartered Accountants Diamond Chambers, Unit-Iii, 4Th Floor Suit No. 4G, 4, Chowringhee Lane, Kolkata – 700 016 [Pan: Alxpk3438N] Ito Ward 2(4), Hooghly,...................…………………………………………Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, G.T. Road Khadina More, Chinsurah Hooghly - 712101 I.T.A. No. 2263/Kol/2014 Assessment Year 2010-11 Ito Ward 2(4), Hooghly,...................…………………………………………Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, G.T. Road Khadina More, Chinsurah Hooghly - 712101 Shri Kartick Kaity.............................……………………………………………..Appellant C/O. V.N. Purohit & Co., Chartered Accountants Diamond Chambers, Unit-Iii, 4Th Floor Suit No. 4G, 4, Chowringhee Lane, Kolkata – 700 016 [Pan: Alxpk3438N] Appearances By: Shri V.N. Purohit, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 11, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 20, 2017 Order Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am These Two Appeals, One By The Assessee Being Ita No. 2017/K/2014 & The Other Filed By The Revenue Being Ita No.

delay is accordingly condoned. 3. The first common issue involved in ground no 1 of the revenue’s appeal as well as ground no 1 of the assessee’s appeal relates to the addition of Rs. 58,06,020/- made by the AO on account of deposits found to be made in the undisclosed bank account of the assessee which

ITO, WARD-24(4), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY vs. SHRI KARTICK KAITY, HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as that of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] I.T.A. No. 2047/Kol/2014 Assessment Year 2010-11 Shri Kartick Kaity.............................……………………………………………..Appellant C/O. V.N. Purohit & Co., Chartered Accountants Diamond Chambers, Unit-Iii, 4Th Floor Suit No. 4G, 4, Chowringhee Lane, Kolkata – 700 016 [Pan: Alxpk3438N] Ito Ward 2(4), Hooghly,...................…………………………………………Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, G.T. Road Khadina More, Chinsurah Hooghly - 712101 I.T.A. No. 2263/Kol/2014 Assessment Year 2010-11 Ito Ward 2(4), Hooghly,...................…………………………………………Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, G.T. Road Khadina More, Chinsurah Hooghly - 712101 Shri Kartick Kaity.............................……………………………………………..Appellant C/O. V.N. Purohit & Co., Chartered Accountants Diamond Chambers, Unit-Iii, 4Th Floor Suit No. 4G, 4, Chowringhee Lane, Kolkata – 700 016 [Pan: Alxpk3438N] Appearances By: Shri V.N. Purohit, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 11, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 20, 2017 Order Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am These Two Appeals, One By The Assessee Being Ita No. 2017/K/2014 & The Other Filed By The Revenue Being Ita No.

delay is accordingly condoned. 3. The first common issue involved in ground no 1 of the revenue’s appeal as well as ground no 1 of the assessee’s appeal relates to the addition of Rs. 58,06,020/- made by the AO on account of deposits found to be made in the undisclosed bank account of the assessee which

ROHTANG COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

unexplained investment under section 69. 5. That the appellant craves to leave, add, amend or adduce any of the grounds of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings.” 3. Appeal of the assessee is time barred by 66 days and a condonation petition has been filed praying for condone the delay

BROTHERS TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-1(1),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Rajesh Kumar

unexplained investments, in terms, are not applicable and as such, the impugned addition of Rs 17,00,000 made by the Assessing Officer ought to be deleted. 3. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in making a disallowance of Rs 3,37,145, being entire expenditure debited to the profit and loss account

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. A.Y. 2017-18 IT(SS)A No. 86/KOL/2025(Assessee’s appeal) 4. The issue raised in ground no.1 in IT(SS)A No.86/KOL/2025 is against the order of ld. CIT (A) estimating the income by directing the application of gross profit rate on the alleged undisclosed receipts from sale of batteries

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. A.Y. 2017-18 IT(SS)A No. 86/KOL/2025(Assessee’s appeal) 4. The issue raised in ground no.1 in IT(SS)A No.86/KOL/2025 is against the order of ld. CIT (A) estimating the income by directing the application of gross profit rate on the alleged undisclosed receipts from sale of batteries

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. A.Y. 2017-18 IT(SS)A No. 86/KOL/2025(Assessee’s appeal) 4. The issue raised in ground no.1 in IT(SS)A No.86/KOL/2025 is against the order of ld. CIT (A) estimating the income by directing the application of gross profit rate on the alleged undisclosed receipts from sale of batteries

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. A.Y. 2017-18 IT(SS)A No. 86/KOL/2025(Assessee’s appeal) 4. The issue raised in ground no.1 in IT(SS)A No.86/KOL/2025 is against the order of ld. CIT (A) estimating the income by directing the application of gross profit rate on the alleged undisclosed receipts from sale of batteries

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. A.Y. 2017-18 IT(SS)A No. 86/KOL/2025(Assessee’s appeal) 4. The issue raised in ground no.1 in IT(SS)A No.86/KOL/2025 is against the order of ld. CIT (A) estimating the income by directing the application of gross profit rate on the alleged undisclosed receipts from sale of batteries

VASUPUJYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble, Kz & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Hon’Ble) Assessment Years: 2012-13 Vasupujya Enterprises Pvt. Ltd……...…...........................................................……………….…......Appellant 35, C.R. Avenue Kolkata – 700 012 [Pan : Aaacv 8958 M] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(2) Kolkata……….....................……........Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, F.C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Imokaba Jamir, Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 10Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 10Th, 2020 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vp, Kz:-

investment company which filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 20/09/2012 declaring total income at Nil and claiming carry forward loss of Rs.85,93,269/-. In the said return, dividend income of Rs.40,49,933/- received during the year under consideration was claimed to be exempt by the assessee company. No disallowance on account of expenses

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI vs. SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

condone the delay and\nadmit the appeal for hearing.\n\n03. The issue raised in ground No.1 by the Revenue is against the\ndeletion of addition of ₹3,04,06,00,00/- by the learned CIT (A) as\nmade by the learned AO in respect of cash deposited by the assessee\ninto bank account.\n\n04. The facts in brief