RAMAN KUMAR MALHOTRA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-36(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07

disallowance in the total income of the assessee. 4. During the year, assessee has shown repayment of loan of ₹6.50 lakh in cash to his wife Smt. Vimmi Malhotra. As per the AO the repayment of loan in cash is prohibited u/s 269T of the Act. Therefore, AO called upon the assessee for levying the penalty u/s 271E

RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-47,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

section 269SS and 269T of the I.T. Act, 4 Rajendra Kumar Mishra, AY 2014-15 1961 when he added the two sum of receipt and payment of loans in cash of Rs.20,000/- & above by the assessee during the F.Y. 2013-14 on account of their "disallowance u/s 269SS and 269T" of the I.T. Act, 1961, where the right course

M/S ARKIT VINCOM PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT RANGE 9, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2397/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S Arkit Vincom Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Range-9, Kolkata [Pan: Aacca 3907 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowed by the ld AO in the assessment as the same is capital in nature. 2 M/s Arkit Vincom Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr.2008-09 Apart from this, the ld AO observed that there was a reduction in loans during the year when compared to the earlier year by a sum of Rs 6,76,500/-. This in the opinion

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the\nCOs of the assessee are partly allowed

Section 68 of the Act, three ingredients were necessary.\nFirstly, identity of the parties to the transaction of loan, second is the\ncreditworthiness of such parties and thirdly the genuineness of the transaction.\nIt was submitted in vain that neither of the ingredients were satisfied.\n5. As discussed above, since the requisite material was furnished by assessee\nshowing the identity

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

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

Section 68 of the Act, three ingredients were necessary. Firstly, identity of the parties to the transaction of loan, second is the creditworthiness of such parties and thirdly the genuineness of the transaction. It was submitted in vain that neither of the ingredients were satisfied. 5. As discussed above, since the requisite material was furnished by assessee showing the identity

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 4 KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

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

Section 68 of the Act, three ingredients were necessary. Firstly, identity of the parties to the transaction of loan, second is the creditworthiness of such parties and thirdly the genuineness of the transaction. It was submitted in vain that neither of the ingredients were satisfied. 5. As discussed above, since the requisite material was furnished by assessee showing the identity

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

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

Section 68 of the Act, three ingredients were necessary. Firstly, identity of the parties to the transaction of loan, second is the creditworthiness of such parties and thirdly the genuineness of the transaction. It was submitted in vain that neither of the ingredients were satisfied. 5. As discussed above, since the requisite material was furnished by assessee showing the identity

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

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

Section 68 of the Act, three ingredients were necessary. Firstly, identity of the parties to the transaction of loan, second is the creditworthiness of such parties and thirdly the genuineness of the transaction. It was submitted in vain that neither of the ingredients were satisfied. 5. As discussed above, since the requisite material was furnished by assessee showing the identity