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

disallowable expenditure as per Assessment order shown as 6,32,223/-which has already been considered by your appellant in the return filed. 4 The details are as follows: Sl.No. Particulars(Rs.) Amount (Rs.) 1 Issue No.01 5,38,077.00 2 Issue No.02 69,146.00 3 Issue No.03 25,000.00 Total 6,32,223.00 5. Ld. Commissioner of Income

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)

disallowable expenditure as per Assessment order shown as 6,32,223/-which has already been considered by your appellant in the return filed. 4 The details are as follows: Sl.No. Particulars(Rs.) Amount (Rs.) 1 Issue No.01 5,38,077.00 2 Issue No.02 69,146.00 3 Issue No.03 25,000.00 Total 6,32,223.00 5. Ld. Commissioner of Income

SABITA RUDRA,NORTH TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 50(1)KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Section 69A, and whether the disallowance of expenses under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS is justified

SALT LAKE SERVICE STATION,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, 49(1),, KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 69A of the Act (Rs. 6,06,52,500/-), disallowance under Section 36(1)(v) of the Act (Rs. 22,654/-), disallowance

M/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA EMPLOYEES CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.207/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Steel Authority Of India Co-Operative Credit Society Limited.......….Appellant Ispat Cooperative House, 12, Charu Chandra Place Ispat Co-Operative House, Charu Market, Kolkata-700 033. [Pan: Aadas9699B] Vs. Pcit-9, Kolkata..……...…..…....................……........……............…...…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Puja Somani, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Amol Kamat, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 20, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 28, 2022 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.03.2022 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Asansol [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pcit’] Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

section is ‘may’ and not ‘shall’. He, therefore, has submitted that it is not mandatory for the Assessing Officer to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC in each case and it is at the discretion of the Assessing Officer to initiate penalty if he deems fit in the facts and circumstances of that case. The ld. Counsel has further invited

BIBHA PANDEY,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 50(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1580/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Bibha Pandey,……………………………………..Appellant Ad-146, Salt Lake, Sector-1, Kolkata-700064, West Bengal [Pan:Ajvpp3199B] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………….…...Respondent Ward-50(3), Kolkata, Income Tax Office, Manicktala Civil Centre, Uttarapan Complex, Ds-Iv, Kolkata-700067 Appearances By: Shri Anuj Moshadi, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 28, 2025 O R D E R

disallowances made by the ld. AO under section 69A of the Act. (2) On the facts and circumstances of the case

EIH LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

section 69A of the Act and made the impugned addition. At this point, it is necessary to extract certain relevant portions from the DRP’s order, wherein a remand report was called from the Ld. AO: “7.5 The AO in his Remand Report has stated that he had asked the assessee to produce all documentary evidence of cash deposit between

EIH LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC, DELHI, KOLKATA

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

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

section 69A of the Act and made the impugned addition. At this point, it is necessary to extract certain relevant portions from the DRP’s order, wherein a remand report was called from the Ld. AO: “7.5 The AO in his Remand Report has stated that he had asked the assessee to produce all documentary evidence of cash deposit between

ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not applicable to the facts of this case. 7 Ashok Kumar Gupta: AY: 2017-18 It was clarified that the sum of Rs.26,94,500/ represented collections from the retailers. These funds were collections on account of retailer collections; and were subsequently deposited in specified bank notes on various dates into

SRIDHARPUR CO-OPERATIVE BANK,BARDHAMAN vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), BURDWAN

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowance should me made under section 68 for SBN deposited during demonetisetion period, if assesses filed details of such deposits. a) Yagnavalkya Souhardha Credit Co. Ltd. Vs. ITO WARD-5(2)(4) Bangalore ITAT "B" Bench Bangalore ITA No 1086/Bang/2022 b) Om Sai Co-Op. Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamit vs PCIT Hubli ITA No.454/Bang/2022 ITAT "C" Bench Bangalore

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

69A or section 69C or section 69D." The intention of the legislature in introducing the amendment, as stated in the explanatory note, is to avoid unnecessary litigation and to expressly provide that no set off of any loss shall be allowable in respect of income under section 68. Therefore, it has to be held that, as on the relevant date

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

69A or section 69C or section 69D." The intention of the legislature in introducing the amendment, as stated in the explanatory note, is to avoid unnecessary litigation and to expressly provide that no set off of any loss shall be allowable in respect of income under section 68. Therefore, it has to be held that, as on the relevant date

PEERLESS HOTELS LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-8(2), KOL, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 545/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Peerless Hotels Limited,..........................Appellant 12, J.L. Nehru Road, Kolkata-700013 [Pan: Aabcp9484D] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-8(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit (Sr. D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 09, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 07, 2023

disallowance. Therefore, the assessee could not buttress its case on the strength of the above decisions. We do not find any merit in these grounds of appeal. They are rejected. 9. In Ground No. 5, the assessee has pleaded that when no income was brought to tax under sections 68, 69, 69A

AWAS DEVCON PVT. LTD. ,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-13(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

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

section 40A(3) of the Act. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.” We note that it is not the case of the AO that the cash payments were not genuine and intended to evade taxes. Therefore the cash payments made by the assessee were out of business compulsion and commercial consideration and are covered

AWAS DEVCON PVT. LTD. ,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-14(4), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

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

section 40A(3) of the Act. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.” We note that it is not the case of the AO that the cash payments were not genuine and intended to evade taxes. Therefore the cash payments made by the assessee were out of business compulsion and commercial consideration and are covered

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND SPONGE AND IRON PRIVATE LIMITED , PATNA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

disallowance was warranted.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "69A", "147", "148", "143(3)", "132", "69C", "292C", "68", "133(6)", "36(1)" ], "issues

ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIR.-1(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. MAHABIR PRASAD GUPTA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

section 69A of Income Tax Act 1961; the Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and facts by deleting the disallowance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL, KOLKATA

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

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

section 69A of the Act and opined that the assessee had failed to explain the nature & sources of such receipts. It is apposite to mention that total unaccounted sales cannot be treated as undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee. It is a common knowledge that if there are sales, there should be corresponding purchases also. Hence, it would