ALISHAN STEELS (P)LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 68. Therefore, it has to be held that, as on the relevant date of the assessment, there was no bar existed with respect to allowing set off against the carried forward unabsorbed depreciation

BEEKAY STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Beekay Steel Industries Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), C/O Subash Agarwal & Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, Associates, Advocates, Siddha 110, Shantipally, Vs. Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite Kolkata-700107, West Bengal 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcb3205A Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2025

depreciation. The statutory notices along with questionnaire were issued and duly served upon the assessee. During the impugned financial year, the assessee had issued equity shares of face value of ₹10/- at a premium of ₹90/-to 28 subscribers. The ld. AO during the course of assessment proceedings accepted the subscription of shares by five directors of the assessee company

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

68 and ought to have invoked the provision of Section 41(1) of the Act, regarding the remission or cessation of liability, as the assessee failed to explain the sundry creditors during the course of assessment proceedings but even that will not sustain as the assessee has not written off the sundry creditors in its books and there

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........…..........................…..…..... Respondent Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] C.O. 39/Kol/2019 (A/O I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] Vs Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal By The Revenue & The Corresponding Cross Objections By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 30.05.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). First, We Take Up Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.1964/Kol/2019. I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 & C.O. 39/Kol/2019 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd

depreciation under the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, this issue of revenue’s appeal is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed”. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of this tribunal supra, we hold that the IPA received by the assessee would have to be construed as a Capital Receipt and the same need not be reduced from the cost

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

depreciation under the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, this issue of revenue’s appeal is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed”. Page 36 of 67 I.T.A. Nos.: 2142 & 2143/KOL/2018 & I.T.A. Nos.: 496 & 497/KOL/2020 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Birla Corporation Limited. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of this tribunal supra, we hold that the IPA received

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

depreciation under the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, this issue of revenue’s appeal is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed”. Page 36 of 67 I.T.A. Nos.: 2142 & 2143/KOL/2018 & I.T.A. Nos.: 496 & 497/KOL/2020 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Birla Corporation Limited. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of this tribunal supra, we hold that the IPA received

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT CIR.-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

depreciation under the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, this issue of revenue’s appeal is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed”. Page 36 of 67 I.T.A. Nos.: 2142 & 2143/KOL/2018 & I.T.A. Nos.: 496 & 497/KOL/2020 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Birla Corporation Limited. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of this tribunal supra, we hold that the IPA received

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

depreciation under the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, this issue of revenue’s appeal is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed”. Page 36 of 67 I.T.A. Nos.: 2142 & 2143/KOL/2018 & I.T.A. Nos.: 496 & 497/KOL/2020 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Birla Corporation Limited. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of this tribunal supra, we hold that the IPA received

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

Depreciation allowable 71,141.00 23,26,196.00 Add:Disallowable Expenditure under section 36 of the Income Tax Act 1961 P.F 30,546.00 Provision for Bad & Doubtful debts 38,077.00 Provision for Leave Salary 5,00,000.00 Donation 20,000.00 Gift 18,600,.00 6,07,223.00 Add: Disallowable Expenditure under Section 37 Software purchase being capital 25,000.00 expenditure debited

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)

Depreciation allowable 71,141.00 23,26,196.00 Add:Disallowable Expenditure under section 36 of the Income Tax Act 1961 P.F 30,546.00 Provision for Bad & Doubtful debts 38,077.00 Provision for Leave Salary 5,00,000.00 Donation 20,000.00 Gift 18,600,.00 6,07,223.00 Add: Disallowable Expenditure under Section 37 Software purchase being capital 25,000.00 expenditure debited

ITO, WARD-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S DREAMZ LIFE CARE NURSING & DIAGNOSTIC CENTRE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

68 of the Act regarding share capital and share premium received from received from two concerns namely M/s. Blossom Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Baliraja Distributors Pvt. Ltd. Since the addition of similar nature has been made in the case of both the assessees in the case of which Revenue is in appeal before us, we find it pertinent

ITO, WARD - 3(2) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. DREAMZ MOVIES & ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

68 of the Act regarding share capital and share premium received from received from two concerns namely M/s. Blossom Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Baliraja Distributors Pvt. Ltd. Since the addition of similar nature has been made in the case of both the assessees in the case of which Revenue is in appeal before us, we find it pertinent

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete all or any of the grounds of appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of investment in shares. Income

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

68,210/- which may kindly be deleted.” 2.2 Grounds of appeal in respect of AY 2013-14 read as under: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the C.I.T.(A) erred in holding that ground No. l and 2 are not to be adjudicated separately while dismissing ground No.1 and 2 for statistical

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

68,210/- which may kindly be deleted.” 2.2 Grounds of appeal in respect of AY 2013-14 read as under: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the C.I.T.(A) erred in holding that ground No. l and 2 are not to be adjudicated separately while dismissing ground No.1 and 2 for statistical

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

68,210/- which may kindly be deleted.” 2.2 Grounds of appeal in respect of AY 2013-14 read as under: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the C.I.T.(A) erred in holding that ground No. l and 2 are not to be adjudicated separately while dismissing ground No.1 and 2 for statistical

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

68,210/- which may kindly be deleted.” 2.2 Grounds of appeal in respect of AY 2013-14 read as under: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the C.I.T.(A) erred in holding that ground No. l and 2 are not to be adjudicated separately while dismissing ground No.1 and 2 for statistical

M/S. MILLENNIUM STOCK BROKING (P) LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

section 115JB of the Act at Rs.1,68,61,740/-. We notice that for the year under appeal, the assessee had positive income and set off was given for the brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation

RAGHVENDRA PRATAP SINGH,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 28, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

section 68. (b) For that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in holding that the addition made erroneously u/s 68 by the A.O. was liable to be added u/s 41(1) of the Act. 9.The appellant craves leave to add further grounds of appeal or alter the grounds at the time of hearing. 4. ld. Counsel for the assessee