ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(3) , KOLKATA vs. SMT. TANUJA MANTRI , KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

undisclosed income" as, any entries found in the books of accounts or any documents seized in the course of search which was either not recorded in the (i) regular books on or before the date of search, "or" (ii) in the documents maintained in normal course of business. In this regard one would now need to understand and examine

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(3) , KOLKATA vs. SMT. TANUJA MANTRI , KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

undisclosed income" as, any entries found in the books of accounts or any documents seized in the course of search which was either not recorded in the (i) regular books on or before the date of search, "or" (ii) in the documents maintained in normal course of business. In this regard one would now need to understand and examine

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

undisclosed income of Rs.2 crores had no nexus with the declared income &depreciation in the books of accounts. This income

D.C.I.T CC - V,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SALSAR STOCK BROKING LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assesses are allowed

Bench: : Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

undisclosed income within the meaning of section 271AAA. (3) That the ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing relief to the assessee by not considering the fact that the provisions of Clause (ii) of Sub- 1 ITA No.1082/Kol/2013-B-AM M/s. Salasar Stock Broking Ltd section (2) of Sec. 271AAA has not been fulfilled in the assessee’s case. “ 4. The brief facts

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]

undisclosed profit in the form of wrongly claimed excess depreciation by M/s Mangilal Rungta amounting to Rs.1,20,79,827/- (i.e. 50% of total wrongly claimed depreciation), does not hold much water. It is unjustified for assessee to show last year's share of profit or part thereof from firm in subsequent year and claim it as exempt income

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]

undisclosed profit in the form of wrongly claimed excess depreciation by M/s Mangilal Rungta amounting to Rs.1,20,79,827/- (i.e. 50% of total wrongly claimed depreciation), does not hold much water. It is unjustified for assessee to show last year's share of profit or part thereof from firm in subsequent year and claim it as exempt income

VIDYA BHARATI SOCIETY FOR EDUCATION & SCIENTIFIC ADVANCEMENT,KOLKATA vs. ACIT(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

undisclosed income of the assessee and further erred in disallowing benefit u/s.11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 under the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. For that the collection of development fees from the students were in the nature of capital receipt under the facts and circumstances of the case which were based on the submissions and evidences

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi]

undisclosed income and Rs.50 Lakhs was offered only as estimated regular income. The actual income earned was more than Rs.50 Lakhs and depreciation

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

undisclosed income of ₹ 50 lakh at the time of survey but it was retracted at the time of filing its return of income. However, AO made said addition of ₹ 50 lakh on the basis of disclosure statement under section 133A of the Act and on the ground that assessee failed to produce its relevant documents along with books of account

ANJALI JEWELLERS,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL-1, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

undisclosed income unearthed during search and cannot include items which are disclosed in the original assessment proceedings. Items of regular assessment cannot be added back in the proceedings u/s 153A when no incriminating documents were found in respect of the disallowed amounts in the search proceedings. A search assessment under section 153A should be evidence based. Therefore

M/S. PRATAP POLYSACKS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 1527/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Pratap Polysacks Limited -Vs.- D.C.I.T., Circle-5(1) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcp 6949 J] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar For The Respondent : Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2018. Date Of Pronouncement : 01.03.2018. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 11.05.2016 Of C.I.T.(A)-2, Kolkata Relating To A.Y.2012-13. 2. Ground Nos. 1, 6 & 7 Are General In Nature & Call For No Specific Adjudication. 3. Ground No.2 Raised By The Assessee Reads As Follows :- “2. For That The Ld. C.I.T(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.13,40,961/- Out Of Claim Of Depreciation & Additional Depreciation S= Electric Installations Being Integral Part Of Plant & Machinery & Wrongly Considered By The Ao As Electric Installations Simplicitor.” 4. The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Hdpe/Pp Woven Socks & Aluminium Composite Panel. In The Course Of Assessment Proceedings The Ao Noticed That The Assessee Had Claimed 15% Of Depreciation & 20% Additional Depreciation On Additions To The Block Of Assets “Plant & Machinery” Of Rs.1,07,34,917/- & Rs.47,737/-. The Sum Of Rs.1,07,34,917/- Was The Cost Of Electrical Installations & Rs.47,737/- Was The Cost Of Fire Extinguisher. According To The Ao The Electrical Installations Were Not To Be Regarded As Plant & Machinery But Has To Be Regarded As Falling Within The Block Of Assets “Furniture & Fitting Including

depreciation schedule that furniture including electrical fittings is considered as a separate block of asset. Therefore it is necessary that the assessee should show that electrical installations which are claimed to be falling within the block of assets “Plant and Machinery” are integral part of the plant and machinery and falls within the block of plant and machinery

M/S. MATARANI VINTRADE PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 15(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M. Jagtap, V.P (Kz) & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13

depreciation 9. Computation of total income. 10. Thus, the aforesaid documents were received by the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings and thereafter he issued notices u/s 133(6) of the Act to all the thirty eight (38) share applicant companies and after perusal of the documents furnished by them (PB-II pages 1-843) and thereafter, summoned the director

D.C.I.T CIR - 3,KOLKATA, ASANSOL vs. NARENDRA KHARKA, DURGAPUR

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

undisclosed income in the return of income for the Asst Year 2009-10 in the form of other income and net off of other income and depreciation

ARISTOCRAT RESIDENCES LLP ,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 34 (1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Income Tax Officer, Ward Aristocrat Residences Llp 34(1) 2 Oswal Chambers Church Lane Aaykar Bhavan, Bbd Bagh, Kolkata-700001 Vs. Kolkata-700107 West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aavfa9997R Assessee By : Dr. Kapil Goel, Ar Revenue By : H. Robindro Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.04.2025

depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year and for which a prior notice under Section 148 would be required to be issued. Section 147 does not contemplate an eventuality which Section 153A or Section 153C contemplates, the basis of which is inter alia a search action under Section 132 being resorted as noted hereinabove. Thus

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

undisclosed income assessed under section 68 need not be treated as an income falling totally outside the ambit of the classifications contained in section 14 of the Act. Even assuming for the sake of argument that, it will not fall within the classifications contained in section 14, it is evident that, as on the date of the assessment such income

ALISHAN STEELS PVT. 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

undisclosed income assessed under section 68 need not be treated as an income falling totally outside the ambit of the classifications contained in section 14 of the Act. Even assuming for the sake of argument that, it will not fall within the classifications contained in section 14, it is evident that, as on the date of the assessment such income

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S. LALBABA SEAMLESS TUBES PVT. LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.58/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

income determined under section 68 of the I.T. Act. Rules of set off to be followed will be the one applicable in the year in which set off is being claimed. Thus I find force in the contentions of the appellant and the judgements relied upon are squarely applicable to the present case. Hence the AO is directed to allow

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KAJARIA YARNS & TWINES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am]

income of Rs.2,80,18,209/- after adjustment of unabsorbed depreciation and inter alia making two additions amounting to Rs.79,00,418/- & Rs.2,01,17,791/-. The amount of Rs.79,00,418/- was added by the AO on the ground that 1435MT of raw jute was acquired / purchased by the assessee from undisclosed