DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SUDARSHAN PAPER & BOARD PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4(2), Kolkata.................................................Appellant Vs. M/S. Sudarshan Paper & Board Pvt. Ltd….......……….............................…………………........Respondent 27, Brabourne Road Room No. 311 Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aahcs 1241 F] C.O. No. 33/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Sudarshan Paper & Board Pvt. Ltd….......……….............................………………….............Appellant 27, Brabourne Road Room No. 311 Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aahcs 1241 F] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4(2), Kolkata.............................................Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4(2), Kolkata.................................................Appellant Vs. M/S. Sudarshan Paper & Board Pvt. Ltd….......……….............................…………………........Respondent 27, Brabourne Road Room No. 311 Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aahcs 1241 F]

cash credit. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circ Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in umstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting Rs. 4,36,97,031/- on account of unexplained trade payables without appreciating the on account of unexplained trade

BISWANATH AGARWALA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-43, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Grounds No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2011-12

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. In this regard we note that the AO erred in accepting part of the cash receipt from M/s Ganesh traders and the balance was not accepted on the ground of non-identification and mailing address of the party. In the present case we are of the view that the AO erred

ITO, WARD - 5(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BANGABHUMI BARTER PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2012-13

unexplained ITA No.2266/Kol/2017 Assessment Year 2012-13 ITO Wd-5(4), Kol. Vs M/s Bangabhumi Barter Pvt. Ltd. Page 7 cash credits amounting to ₹2,5100,000/- requires to be sent back to the Assessing Officer for afresh detailed factual verification as per law. We order accordingly. Suffice to say, the assessee shall be afforded three effective opportunities of hearing

M/S SHREENATH HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,HOWRAH vs. I.T.O.,WARD-5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble] I.T.A. No. 2390/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Shreenath Holding Pvt. Ltd…………...……………....……..…………..………………....……Appellant 33/34, Ramlal Mukherjee Lane 2Nd Floor Room No. 2D Howrah - 711106 [Pan: Aadcs 5887 P] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Kolkata…………………………..............….....….…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit, Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 24Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 26Th, 2020 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 2, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld.Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 17/10/2019, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Is A Company & Is Engaged In The Business Of Trading & Distribution Of Goods. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 16/08/2012 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.15,500/-. During The Year, The Assessee Raised Share Capital Including Premium Amounting To Rs.1,13,55,000/-. The Assessing Officer Conducted Enquiries & The Assessee Presented The Share Holders Including The Directors Of The Share Holding Companies Before The Assessing Officer. After Due Enquiry, The Assessing Officer Accepted The Explanations Of The Assessee That The Cash Credits In The Form Of Share Capital Were Genuine, Except In The Case Of M/S. Seacom Merchants, Which Had Applied For Shares. An Amount Of Rs. 20,00,000/- Pertaining To M/S. Seacom Merchants, Was Added.

unexplained cash credit. (f) In the above circumstances and particularly in view (f) In the above circumstances and particularly in view of the concurrent finding of of the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, the proposed question of law does fact arrived at by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, the proposed question

M/S. BARDHAMAN DHARMARAJ PAPER MILL PVT. LTD.,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BURDWAN

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year : 2015-16

unexplained cash credits. 6. Ground of appeal I have considered the written submissions of the appellant and also examined the assessment order. I has rightly disallowed

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BURDWAN, BURDWAN vs. M/S. BARDHAMAN DHARMARAJ PAPER MILL PVT. LTD., BURDWAN

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year : 2015-16

unexplained cash credits. 6. Ground of appeal I have considered the written submissions of the appellant and also examined the assessment order. I has rightly disallowed

BINOD KUMAR MAHATO ,BURDWAN vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - BURDWAN , BURDWAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowances to the total income of assessee. Subsequently, Ld. CIT u/s 263 of the Act observed certain total income of assessee. Subsequently, Ld. CIT u/s 263 of the Act observed certain total income of assessee. Subsequently, Ld. CIT u/s 263 of the Act observed certain errors in the order of AO, therefore, he was of the view tht the order

SRI JOY BARMAN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-42(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

cash credit on agreed basis - in favour of assessee. (k) Roshan Lal Madan vs. ACIT - reported in 245 ITR(AT)36 (Chand) Where held that an addition made on the basis of presumption under deeming provisions u/s 69, 69(A), 69(8), 69(C) need not necessarily lead to a conclusion that income had been concealed. Levy of penalty

SRI JOY BARMAN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-42(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

cash credit on agreed basis - in favour of assessee. (k) Roshan Lal Madan vs. ACIT - reported in 245 ITR(AT)36 (Chand) Where held that an addition made on the basis of presumption under deeming provisions u/s 69, 69(A), 69(8), 69(C) need not necessarily lead to a conclusion that income had been concealed. Levy of penalty

SATYAM SUREKA ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the different assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey] I.T.(S.S).A. No. 13 /Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 Satyam Sureka Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-3(3), Kolkata

unexplained cash credit u/s 56 of the Act. c) Addition of exempt gift received from HUF as income u/s 56 of the Act. d) Estimation based addition on account of drawings. (not pressed) e) Addition of gifts received from non-relatives, which were duly disclosed in the return of income, as income u/s 68 read with Section 115BBE

LAL BABA SEAMLESS TUBES (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes, while the appeal of the Revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

cash credits representing unsecured loans in terms of section 68 and since the ld. D.R. has also not raised any objection in this regard, we set aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) on this issue and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the same afresh after giving the assessee one more

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes, while the appeal of the Revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

cash credits representing unsecured loans in terms of section 68 and since the ld. D.R. has also not raised any objection in this regard, we set aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) on this issue and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the same afresh after giving the assessee one more

M/S ABHIJEET ENTERPRISE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. On appeal the Hon’ble High Court observed that there was no actual involvement of money but the allotment of shares in lieu of outstanding dues was only a book adjustment and therefore held that provisions of Section 68 could not be invoked in the given facts of the case. The relevant

ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S VISHNU DISTRIBUTORS PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is devoid of any merit, hence dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 50/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-2013

unexplained cash credit cannot arise. In the light of the above decision, the view taken by the learned Tribunal was perfectly in order and sustainable. Thus, we find there is no ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the revenue

NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the I.T. Act and added to the total income of the assessee during the year.” 4. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who issued notices for hearing and after considering the assessment order and the response/written submission ITA Nos.: 179 & 180/KOL/2025

NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the I.T. Act and added to the total income of the assessee during the year.” 4. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who issued notices for hearing and after considering the assessment order and the response/written submission ITA Nos.: 179 & 180/KOL/2025

M/S. RUKMANI AGENCIES ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 47(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.1248/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Rukmani Agencies Vs. Ito, Ward-47(4), Kolkata P.K. Himmatsinghka, Aa-4, Salt Lake, Kol-64. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaffr0072C (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. 4. The Revenue’s case on the other hand is that the assessee has failed to explain source of the impugned bank deposits attributable to saree/fabric sale amounts realised from the customer parties right from date of survey on 18.01.2012 to the lower appellate proceedings. It draws strong support from

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND CEMENT & ROOFINGS PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

Credit, if any, will be refundable to the Excise Department and it has nothing to do with the Income Tax Department and hence the question of any addition or disallowance of the aforesaid amount did not arise. Moreover, the whole of such amount does not relate to this year. However, the Assessing officer rejected the submissions of the assessee

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND CEMENT & ROOFINGS PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

Credit, if any, will be refundable to the Excise Department and it has nothing to do with the Income Tax Department and hence the question of any addition or disallowance of the aforesaid amount did not arise. Moreover, the whole of such amount does not relate to this year. However, the Assessing officer rejected the submissions of the assessee