PRABHADEVI MURARKA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CC - XVIII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, this Ground of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) I.T.A. No. 55/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Prabhadevi Murarka…………………....................................................................................…………Appellant 1/C, Madevilla Garden Kolkata – 700 019 [Pan : Afdpm 2245 R] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-Xviii, Kolkata…………………..…………………..Respondent I.T.A. No. 56/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sharmita Murarka……………………....................................................................................…………Appellant 1/C, Madevilla Garden Kolkata – 700 019 [Pan : Afdpm 1477 K] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-Xviii, Kolkata……………………………………..Respondent I.T.A. No. 57/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sabita Dey…………………………………....................................................................................…………Appellant 1/C, Madevilla Garden Kolkata – 700 019 [Pan : Aaipd 9654 M] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-Xviii, Kolkata……………………………………..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Radhe Shyam, Cit, D/R Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 18Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 1St, 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

investment in jewellery, is hereby t in jewellery, is hereby deleted. 17. W now take up Ground No. 3 regarding unexplained expenditure incurred for W now take up Ground No. 3 regarding unexplained expenditure incurred for W now take up Ground No. 3 regarding unexplained expenditure incurred for jewellery making charges. In view of our above discussion, we dismiss this

SHARMITA MURARKA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CC - XVIII,K, KOLKATA

In the result, this Ground of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) I.T.A. No. 55/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Prabhadevi Murarka…………………....................................................................................…………Appellant 1/C, Madevilla Garden Kolkata – 700 019 [Pan : Afdpm 2245 R] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-Xviii, Kolkata…………………..…………………..Respondent I.T.A. No. 56/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sharmita Murarka……………………....................................................................................…………Appellant 1/C, Madevilla Garden Kolkata – 700 019 [Pan : Afdpm 1477 K] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-Xviii, Kolkata……………………………………..Respondent I.T.A. No. 57/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sabita Dey…………………………………....................................................................................…………Appellant 1/C, Madevilla Garden Kolkata – 700 019 [Pan : Aaipd 9654 M] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-Xviii, Kolkata……………………………………..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Radhe Shyam, Cit, D/R Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 18Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 1St, 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

investment in jewellery, is hereby t in jewellery, is hereby deleted. 17. W now take up Ground No. 3 regarding unexplained expenditure incurred for W now take up Ground No. 3 regarding unexplained expenditure incurred for W now take up Ground No. 3 regarding unexplained expenditure incurred for jewellery making charges. In view of our above discussion, we dismiss this

ITO, WARD-2(4), DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR vs. SMT. UMA SEN, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

disallowed Rs. 9,76,208/- as unexplained investment and has disallowed balance amount of Rs. 29,49,272/- as unexplained

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUR MANGAL HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

disallowance of unsecured loan made under unexplained investment u/s 69 of the income-tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 30,00,000/-. 4. Whether

ACIT, CIRCLE - 50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SMT. MAYA SIRKAR, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

disallowance of certain expenses from the impounded papers amounting to Rs. 10,71,399/- (Rs. 5,25,431+ 5,148+ 1,30,651+ 2,55,705), that the same have been correlated by the assessee in the written submissions with the unrecorded sales of Rs. 16,89,700/- on which the Ld AO himself has estimated the profit of Rs.2

IMPROVE FINANACIAL CONSULTANTS (P) LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-4(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

investment in unlisted securities at Rs. 5,60,77,100/-, unexplained loans and advances to related parties at Rs. 5,76,01,200/- and disallowance

SHRI MONOTOSH PRAMANIK,MIDNAPORE vs. ITO, WARD - 1(3), MIDNAPORE, MIDNAPORE

In the result, ITA No.191/Kol/2020 stands dismissed and ITA No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargi.T.A. Nos.191&192/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2004-05&2005-06 Mantosh Pramanik...................................………….………………….……Appellant Chirimarsai, P.O-Midnapore, W.B - 721101 [Pan: Ajupp2467K] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Midnapore.…….…..…...............……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar & Aryan Kochar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr,Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 30, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 30, 2022

unexplained investment. 8. For that the Ld. CIT (A) erred in not properly appreciating the facts of the case and confirming the disallowance

SHRI MONOTOSH PRAMANIK,MIDNAPORE vs. ITO, WARD - 1(3), MIDNAPORE, MIDNAPORE

In the result, ITA No.191/Kol/2020 stands dismissed and ITA No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargi.T.A. Nos.191&192/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2004-05&2005-06 Mantosh Pramanik...................................………….………………….……Appellant Chirimarsai, P.O-Midnapore, W.B - 721101 [Pan: Ajupp2467K] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Midnapore.…….…..…...............……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar & Aryan Kochar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr,Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 30, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 30, 2022

unexplained investment. 8. For that the Ld. CIT (A) erred in not properly appreciating the facts of the case and confirming the disallowance

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. INDUSTRIAL SAFETY PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. (Shri) Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

disallowed was not considered by the AO to be 'undisclosed income' for the purposes of Section 271AAB of the Act. I therefore find that the AO’s allegation that the assessee had not paid tax & interest on the income of Rs. 6,04, 95, 915/- and for that reason the assessee was not entitled to benefit of 271AAB

BROTHERS TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-1(1),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Rajesh Kumar

unexplained investments, in terms, are not applicable and as such, the impugned addition of Rs 17,00,000 made by the Assessing Officer ought to be deleted. 3. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in making a disallowance

ACIT, CIRCLE - 52, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SMT. PREMLATA SHROFF, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

unexplained investment to the exclusion of the first sum. What AO alleged that the assessee has tampered bank statement is in fact a sectional view of the bank transactions to correlate the assessee’s transactions of investment in securities. The assessee prepared a chart explaining the investments with reference to the entries in the disclosed bank account as the source

M/S ASHIM KUMAR CHATTERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-WD-54(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purpose

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

disallowance of R.9.50 lakh as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 9. The assessee in the year under consideration

ITO, WARD - 36(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. S.H. MUMTAZUDDIN, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm]

disallowance to 10% of Rs. 7,75,936/- as undisclosed investment in purchases and undisclosed profit @ 22.49% to the extent of Rs. 1,74,508/- as against Rs. 5,13,271/- made by the ld AO. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us on the following grounds:- “1. That the facts and circumstances of the case

SMT. MADHU CHHANDA SIRKAR,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1704/Kol/2011 and ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Smt. Madhumita Roy, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2007-08

disallowance and without an specific defects, therefore, the order passed by the Ld. C.I.T.(A) is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. 3. For that on the facts of the case, the C.I.T.(A) was wrong in dittoing the order of the A.O. and confirming the addition of Rs.3,25,000/- on the basis of personal diary

DCIT, CIRCLE - 50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SMT. MADHU CHANDA SIRKAR, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1704/Kol/2011 and ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Smt. Madhumita Roy, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2007-08

disallowance and without an specific defects, therefore, the order passed by the Ld. C.I.T.(A) is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. 3. For that on the facts of the case, the C.I.T.(A) was wrong in dittoing the order of the A.O. and confirming the addition of Rs.3,25,000/- on the basis of personal diary

SMT MADHU CHHANDA SIRKAR,KOLKATA vs. CIT-XVII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1704/Kol/2011 and ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Smt. Madhumita Roy, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2007-08

disallowance and without an specific defects, therefore, the order passed by the Ld. C.I.T.(A) is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. 3. For that on the facts of the case, the C.I.T.(A) was wrong in dittoing the order of the A.O. and confirming the addition of Rs.3,25,000/- on the basis of personal diary

ROHTANG COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

unexplained expenditure u/s 69 of the Act which is patently wrong. Similar is 3 Rohtang Commercial Pvt. Ltd.., AY 2017-18 the status with regard to the other addition i.e loans and advances given by the assessee were added u/s 69 of the Act. 6. In the appellate proceeding also, the order was framed ex parte

A.C.I.T CIR - 3,ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. SRI BIRESWAR KAR, RAIGANJ

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed while the C

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

unexplained investment can be made without any discussion. It also needs to be mentioned that the amount of capital in a particular business can only be a pointer but cannot be the only yardstick for judging whether withdrawals in excess of such capital can be made. Under the circumstances, I find that the withdrawals made by the appellant from

ACIT, CIRCLE - 36, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. SMT. SHRUTI MOHTA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year:2013-14

unexplained cash credits along with commission disallowance / addition thereupon amounting to ₹2,39,595/- and restricting sec. 14A r.w.s 8D disallowance from ₹49,48,378/- to ₹1,30,597/- only. Relevant proceedings in both assessment year(s) are u/s143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’ Heard both the parties. Case file(s) perused