NEXTGEN VYAPAAR ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 133(6) of the Act. section 133(6) of the Act. (v) We note from a perusal of the paper book (v) We note from a perusal of the paper book-2, pages 138 to 159 the 2, pages 138 to 159 the details of share applicant details of share applicant M/s. Shivarshi Construction Pvt. Ltd M/s. Shivarshi Construction

INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S STANDARD LEATHER PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2010-11

disallowed the ITA No.2620/Kol/2013 A.Y. 2010-11 ITO Wd-12(1), Kol. vs. M/s Standard Leather Pvt. Ltd. Page 7 same under section 40A(3) of the Act on account of non-service of notice under section 133(6

GARUD CREDIT & HOLDING PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 9(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 1270/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Garud Credit & Holding Pvt. Limited,.........Appellant D.J. Shah & Co., 2, Elgin Road, Kolkata-700020 [Pan: Aaacg9791P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-9(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Veekaas S. Sharma, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 06, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 01, 2023 O R D E R

section 133(6) of the Act were issued to some of the share applicants on test check basis and thoroughly investigated the issue. The ld. Assessing Officer 3 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Garud Credit & Holding Pvt. Limited further examined the expenses claimed during the year and finally completed the assessment without making any addition on account of share capital received

AMRITRASHI INFRA(P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.C.I.T.-4, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2012-13 Amritrashi Infra Private Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax- (Pan: Aakca2544E) 4, Kolkata.

133(6) of the Act (refer paper book 2 page 2 to 352) and then he carried out the verification of documents submitted by the share applicants/investors for proving the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness and also their source of fund to invest in the assessee company. Thereafter, the second AO by order dated 07/12/2016 disallowed an amount

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA vs. EDMOND FINVEST PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 68 of the Act and consequently disallowing the corresponding interest expenditure of Rs. 1,94,958/-. In order to understand issue under consideration, it would be appropriate to bring on record the facts of the case in brief. The appellant is a non- banking financial company. In the course of its business, the appellant receives inter-corporate deposits from

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. MAA ANNAPURNA TRANSPORT AGENCY LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkery, Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

133(6) b) Company Master c) Loan confirmation with Bank Statement d) Bank statement of loan creditor e) IT Return Acknowledgment f) Audited Accounts of Loan Creditors year ending on 31.03.2012, 31.03.2013 & 31.03.2014 g) Computation of Income 31.03.2014 15. Thus, when all this aforesaid documents in respect of each and every loan creditors have been filed and corporate entities

ACIT, CIR-33, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI BISWAJIT GUHA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narsimha Chary

section 133(6) of the Act the AO found the excess balance of Rs. 90,750/- shown by the assessee. On question by the AO assessee failed to provide any supporting evidence to explain the difference. Accordingly the AO has treated the excess liability shown by the assessee as income and added to the total income of the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSOENR OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

disallowance of Rs. 18,67,227/- under section 14A of the Act on account of expenses incurred to earn exempt income to Rs. 86,368/- in contravention of CBDT's Circular No. 5/2014 dated 11/02/2014?” 04. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income on 29.09.2015, declaring total loss of ₹10,22,220/-, which

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

disallowance of Rs. 18,67,227/- under section 14A of the Act on account of expenses incurred to earn exempt income to Rs. 86,368/- in contravention of CBDT's Circular No. 5/2014 dated 11/02/2014?” 04. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income on 29.09.2015, declaring total loss of ₹10,22,220/-, which

CITYSTAR GANGULY PROJECTS LLP,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 9, , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Section 133(6) was in fact carried out by the AO from the said party and evidence in support of compliance made by the said party was also furnished before the ld. Pr. CIT. We therefore note that since the evidence led by the assessee in this regard was found to be factually true, 6 I.T.A No.1103/Kol/2019

DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MCNALLY BHARAT ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2005-06 Dcit, Circle-1(1), V/S. M/S Mcnally Bharat P-7, Chowringhee Engineering Co. Ltd., 4, Square, R. No.20, 7Th Mangoe Lane, 7Th Floor, Floor, Kolkata-69 Kolkata-001 [Pan No.Abcm 9443 R] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri P. Mukherjee Addl Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Mrs. Trishna Sharma & ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Mr. P.K. Rai, Aca 14-08-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 31-08-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2005-06 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1,Kolkata’S Order Dated 29.07.2016, Passed In Case No.549/Cit(A)-1/Ward-1(2)/2008-09, Reversing The Assessing Officer’S Action Disallowing / Adding Assessee’S Claim Of Pf / Esi On Account Of Delayed Payment, Discrepancy In Various Transactions Leading To Section 69C Addition Of Unexplained Investment Pertaining To Sub-Contractor Payments, Expenditure Of Payment To Sub-Contractors Involving Corresponding Figure Of ₹20,06,017, 16,52,726/- & 46,04,963/-; Respectively, In Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. We Come To First Issue Of Correctness Of Section 36(1)(Va) R.W. 2(24)X_ Disallowance / Addition Of Assessee’S Employees’ Contribution Towards Pf /

Section 36(1)(va) r.w. 2(24)x_ disallowance / addition of assessee’s employees’ contribution towards PF / ITA No.1968/Kol/2016 A.Y.2005-06 DCIT, Cir-1(1), Kol. Vs. M/s Mcnally Bharat Engineering Co. Ltd. Page 2 ESI on account of its belated payment beyond the grace period but before the due date of filing return. Suffice to say, the hon'ble jurisdictional

ACIT, CIR-3, MALDA, MALDA vs. SHRI PROSEN CHOWDHURY, MALDA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri A.T. Varkey

disallowance of alleged cash purchases. 8. From the confirmation received from another creditor M/s. Shankar Prasad Gupta & Co. in reply to the letter issued under section 133(6

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AXIS OVERSEAS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc 1(1), Kolkata Axis Overseas Limited Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, 21A, Shakespeare Sarani, Vs. 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700107, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagca7497L Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri P.N. Barnwal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.12.2025

133(6) of the Act, which were served and duly replied by these parties. The learned AO noted on the basis of balance sheets that the loans taken by the assessee from these parties were not shown in their balance sheets by them. However, on the other hand, the learned CIT(A) has recorded a clear-cut finding that

DCIT, CC-2(3), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA vs. MAXCAB INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Maxcab Industries Pvt. Ltd. 4Th Floor, 110 Shantipally, 67/C, Balaram Dey Street, E.M. Bypass, Vs. West Bengal-700006 West Bengal-700107 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aancm1997Q Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Ms. Nandini Surekh, Shri Pranabesh Sarkar, Ars Revenue By : Praveen Kishore, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2025

133(6) of the Act could not be served by the inspector as they were not existing in their addresses. The learned AO also noted that the summons issued under Section 131 of the Act were also not responded by the parties and finally added the amount of ₹9.45 crore to the income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit

BHAG CHAND CHHABRA HUF,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 34(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

133(6) issued to M/s Jagtrani Commodities has not been complied with though the notice was duly served ....”. Submissions by the appellant: This Indicates the so called default, if any, has been committed by the broker. It is submitted that for any default on part of the broker could not be made basis for any adversity on the client. This

ACIT, CIR-3, ASANSOL, KOLKATA vs. SRI DEEPAK GUPTA, RANIGANJ

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

133(6) of the Act. The AO observed that the assessee did not give proper explanation in producing required details of persons for verification and veracity of said transaction. The AO by placing reliance in the case of CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More reported in 82 ITR 54 and in the case of CIT vs. Calcutta Agency Ltd. reported

IRIS CLOTHINGS LTD,HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar

133 (6) of the Act to the lenders where duly acknowledged and all the lenders confirmed the loan transactions by filing the documents which were placed before the tribunal in the form of a paper book. These materials were available on the file of the assessing officer and there is no discussion on this aspect. Thus, we find that

M/S AB (WINES) STORES,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, KOLKATA-14, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.901/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ab (Wines) Stores -Vs.- Pr. C.I.T., Kolkata-14 Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aajfa 6312 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri R.S.Biswas, Cit Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 Order

133(6) of the Act in order to verify the claim of the assessee. The ld AO observed that the assessee had made cash payments exceeding Rs 20,000/- on a single day in contravention of provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act and disallowed