DCIT, CIRCLE - 2, MIDNAPORE, PASCHIM MEDINIPUR vs. M/S. GRAMI AGRO PVT. LTD., PASCHIM MEDINIPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2007-08

u/s 133A of the Act by the assessee is valid in the eyes of law. We find that in several case laws it has been held that even assessee has admitted in voluntarily disclosure for certain addition but the Assessing Officer is duty bound to bring on record the factual facts before making the addition. The addition should be based

A.C.I.T CIR - 30,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SAMAR KUMAR SEN, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

u/s 133A to administer oath. Reliance is placed in this regard on the following decisions:- Paul Mathew & Sons vs CIT reported in (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) Sec 133A of the Act does not empower any ITO to examine any person on oath . Thus the statement elicited during the survey operation has no evidentiary value. CIT vs S Khader Khan

PKC SECURITIES ,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-35(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

survey action u/s 133A of the Act was conducted by Pr. Director of Income Tax (Investigation) , Ahmedabad at the premise of NMCE and backup of the NMCE trade was taken. Aftter analysis of this data, 85 entites was identified was identified who had booked contrived losses in excess of Rs. 10 crores and information was shared with concerned Director General

PATAKA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(2), KOLKATA PRESENTLY CIRCLE-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

depreciation and no TDS done for rent payment by the assessee. Again on third occasion, subsequent to a survey u/s. 133A

RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the\nrevenue stand dismissed

survey operation u/s. 133A. Besides, the assessee was also subjected to\nsurvey operation u/s. 133A at 107, Pragati Towers, 26 Rajendra Place, New Delhi-110008.\nThe Assessing Officer found that though the assessee claimed that the impounded material\ndid not belong to the assessee but since the assessee failed to explain the same and there was\nno compliance

RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED,DELHI vs. A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the\nrevenue stand dismissed

survey operation u/s. 133A. Besides, the assessee was also subjected to\nsurvey operation u/s. 133A at 107, Pragati Towers, 26 Rajendra Place, New Delhi-110008.\nThe Assessing Officer found that though the assessee claimed that the impounded material\ndid not belong to the assessee but since the assessee failed to explain the same and there was\nno compliance

WINDOW TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL) - 2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2019-20

survey operation u/s 133A of the Act 3 Window Technologies Pvt. Ltd. AY: 2019-20 conducted at the office premise of the assessee on 17.01.2019 in “Dhanuka Group” of cases. In response to the notices the assessee-company submitted/furnished all the relevant details online electronically. The assessment u/s 143(3) the Act was made at the returned income

ACIT, CIR-36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI SAMPAT MAL BACHHAWAT, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm& Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1822/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 A.C.I.T., Circle-36, -Vs- Sri Sampat Mal Bachhawat Kolkata Kolkata. [Pan: Adipb 7124 R] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr For The Respondent : Shri Anil Kochar, Ar

133A of the Act was carried out in the business premises of the proprietorship concern on 30.3.2010. The survey proceedings were started at 2.00 P.M. and the same was concluded on 31.3.2010 at 1.30 A.M. The books and accounts maintained by M/s Power Electronics include cash book, bank book, ledger, sales and purchase register etc. All the books were maintained

MUKUND RUNGTA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-V, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

survey conducted u/s 133A of the Act which were also subsequently released by the investigation wing after necessary verification. In addition to the above, assets and documents, bank accounts, passports and credit cards etc were found in the name of various persons of this Group. No person or concern of the group had admitted any undisclosed income in the course

NANDILAL RUNGTA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-V, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

survey conducted u/s 133A of the Act which were also subsequently released by the investigation wing after necessary verification. In addition to the above, assets and documents, bank accounts, passports and credit cards etc were found in the name of various persons of this Group. No person or concern of the group had admitted any undisclosed income in the course

DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S DOTEX MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objections are also dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted in the case of Dotex Merchandise Pvt Ltd, and Uday Shankar Mahawar on 22/08/2014 at 12, Ho Chi Minh Sarani, Kolkata-71. It has been gathered through statements and findings of the survey proceedings and post survey investigation that Shri U. S. Mahawar is a bogus entry operator, who provides entry

ITO, WD-43(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TIRUPATI COMMERCIAL, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1329/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Ito, Ward-43(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Tirupati Commercial [Pan: Aadft 4683 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

133A of the Act was carried out in the business premises of the assessee on 29.09.2010. On the date of survey, the survey team impounded the profit and loss account prepared up to the date of survey and found that the assessee had achieved a turnover of Rs. 7,13,35,718/- and net profit thereon was calculated

M/S. SAREGAMA INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, (TDS) CIRCLE - 59, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

133A of the Act i.e. the TDS survey conducted on assessee’s business premises on 13.09.2007, it was observed that the assessee did not deduct tax at source on lump sum payment made on outright purchase of music rights. The AO required the assessee to explain as to why the assessee not treated as assessee in default u/s

ACIT, CC-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BABA LOKENATH FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

u/s 133A was conducted in the premises of the assessee M/s Baba M/s Baba Lokenath Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2012-13 Lokenath Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd on 17-01-2010. During this survey certain documents were impounded. On the basis of impounded documents, the assessee through its director disclosed Rs.1,50,00,000/- in the hands of thecompany

ITO, WARD - 36(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. S.H. MUMTAZUDDIN, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm]

133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 20.1.2003 and incriminating documents and evidences were found and impounded by the survey team. A search and seizure operation was carried out by the Central Excise authorities on 18.2.2000 and it was found by them that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing and selling of watches

SHRI UDIT AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. DCIT(IT)-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed accordingly

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2014-15 Shri Udit Agarwal V/S. Dcit (It)-2(1), 110, 3, Madan Mohan Burman Shanti Pally, Kolkata- Street, Kolkataa-007 107 [Pan No.Ahupa 0424 B] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 03-12-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 26-12-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22,Kolkata’S Order Dated 10.05.2017 Passed In Case No.71/Cit(A)/22/Kol/14-15/16-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Learned Representatives. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Ground Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Treating Its Long Term Capital Gains (Ltcg) Of ₹64,99,391/- To Be Unexplained Cash Credits U/S 68 Of The Act. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reads As Under:- ”06. Decision: 1. I Have Carefully Considered The Action Of The Ld. Ao In Treating The Amount Of Rs.67,24,391/- Being Claimed By The Appellant To Be Proceeds Of Shares Sold To Be Ltcg & Claimed As Exempt. The Findings Of The Ld. Ao Are Based On The Information Being Supplied By The Investigation Wing Of The Department At Kolkata. I Have Also Carefully Examined The Submissions Of The Appellant, Wherein

Depreciation 0.82 0.54 0.54 0.48 0.62 Profit before tax 0.03 0.22 0.17 0.29 PBT(Post Extra-odd items) 0.33 0.22 0.17 0.29 0.30 Tax -0.02 -0.03 0.08 0.09 0.32 Reported net profit 0.05 0.25 0.10 0.20 0.32 Total value addition 3.08 3.50 3.11 2.35 0.10 0.10 0.23 1.99 Per share data (annualized) Shares in issue (lakhs

MANGI LAL SETHIA,UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. ITO, WD-1, RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR, UTTAR DINAJPUR

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2004-05

133A was conducted in the business premises of Sri Mangilal Sethia and Sri Poonon Chand Sethia on 13/11/2006.During the course of recording the statement of Sri Poonam Chand Sethia, it is found that the two cheque of Rs.40,000/- and Rs.5,50,800/- were deposited on 09/09/2003 and 29/9/2003 in the name of M/s Satyam Enterprises, which were received from

TAPAS DHARA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT CIRCLE 44, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am]

u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 14.02.2013. In the course of survey a statement of the assessee was recorded. The assessee was specifically asked by the officer conducting the survey for the books of accounts. The assessee explained that the books of accounts will be prepared