OM FORGING & ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE PR. CIT-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals are allowed

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

Section 69C of the Act reads as under :- “ 69C. Where in any financial year an assessee has incurred any expenditure and he offers no explanation about the source of such expenditure or part thereof , or the explanation, if any, offered by him is not, in the opinion of the [Assessing] Officer, satisfactory, the amount covered by such expenditure or part

I.T.O WD - 1(1),ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. M/S EAST INDIA MINING & POWER ASSOCIATES, PURULIA

In the result, assessee’s CO is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

section 69C would be permissible but not otherwise. Even where expenses are disallowed under sections 29 to 44D of the Income

JEWEL INDIA JEWELLERS ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR. 4(4), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

69C or 69D reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139 of the Act. However, in the present case no such income was reflected in the return filed under section 139 of the Act rather the income was declared in the return filed under section 153A of the Act after the search. The assessee declared the income under

JEWEL INDIA JEWELLERS,KOLKATQA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR. 4(4), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

69C or 69D reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139 of the Act. However, in the present case no such income was reflected in the return filed under section 139 of the Act rather the income was declared in the return filed under section 153A of the Act after the search. The assessee declared the income under

A R UDYOG,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD 46(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

disallowed a sum of\n₹11,49,794/- out of total purchases of ₹15,71,509/- made by the\nassessee on the allegation of the same being bogus purchases; however,\nthe addition has been made under the wrong provision of section 68 of\nthe Act which refers to unexplained cash credits and the appropriate\nprovision would have been section 69C

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. 40,44,375/- under section 69C of the Act on account of interest on bogus unsecured loan

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. 40,44,375/- under section 69C of the Act on account of interest on bogus unsecured loan

WELKIN TELECOM INFRA PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Rjesh Kumar, Am ]

disallowance be deleted. 8. The Ld. AR further submitted that the addition made u/s 69C of theAct was itself erroneous and drew our attention to section

PRAVESH KUMAR JAISWAL,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 62(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarmapravesh Kumar Jaiswal Vs Ito, Ward-62(1), Kolkata 245A, Apc Road, Manicktalla, Kol-700006. Pan No. :Acspj9691A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P. N. Barnwal, Cir- Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm : This Appeal By The Assessee Arises Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata, Whereby The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Making An Addition Of ₹1,27,38,506/- Under Section 69C Read With Section 115Bbe Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Was Confirmed. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny As It Was Noticed That The Assessee Had Made Substantial Purchases From Certain Suppliers Who Were Either Non- Filers Of Income Tax Returns, Filed Returns With Abnormally Low Turnover, Or Whose Gst Registrations Were Either Cancelled Or Suo Motu Suspended As Per Adg (Gst) Data. Based On This Information, The Assessing Officer Formed A View That There Was A Possibility Of The Assessee Booking Bogus Or Inflated Purchase Expenses To Reduce Taxable Profit & Accordingly, Scrutiny Proceedings Were Initiated By Issue Of Statutory Notices. During

69C of the Act was bad in law, as the Assessing Officer did not reject the books of account maintained by the assessee under section 145(3) of the Act. Without such rejection, it was impermissible to disallow

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, 69B, 69C

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

ITO, WARD - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TRIBUTE TRADING AND FINANCE LTD.,, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 69C of LT. Act, 1961 is intended for addition on the basis of actual expenses. 2.3 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. A.O. is wrong and unjustified in making ad-hoc disallowance

SRI SUBRATA BANERJEE ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 51(1) , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 69C of LT. Act, 1961 is intended for addition on the basis of actual expenses. 2.3 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. A.O. is wrong and unjustified in making ad-hoc disallowance

ITO, WARD - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TRIBUTE TRADING AND FINANCE LTD.,, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 69C of LT. Act, 1961 is intended for addition on the basis of actual expenses. 2.3 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. A.O. is wrong and unjustified in making ad-hoc disallowance

ITO, WARD-1(2),, SILIGURI vs. BINOY AGARWAL, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

69C, however, Commissioner (Appeals) on finding genuineness in\npayments and sales, restricted disallowance to 8 per cent of total purchases, order\nof Commissioner (Appeals) needed no interference.\n5.2.10 The facts of the case are Assessing Officer, upon finding that assessee. was\nengaged in bogus purchases, disallowed entire purchases, considering it\nunexplained expenditure under section

YOGESH TRANSPORT PVT LTD,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

69C", "40(a)(ia)", "194C", "145(3)", "271(1)(c)", "234B", "234C" ], "issues": "Whether disallowance of transport expenses solely based on non-appearance of vehicle details in the VAHAN portal is sustainable, and whether the disallowance under Section

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’).

69C or section I.T.A. No.207/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/s Steel Authority of India Co-Operative Credit Society Limited 69D. In view of these specific provisions of law, initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 270A in this case is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. 3. In the light of the above

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. WELKIN TELECOM INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav (Vice President), Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member)

disallowance of site expenses of Rs.1,06,12,994/- made by the Ld. AO invoking section 69C of the Act. 14. Ld. AO made

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

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 of the assessment