SRI CHHANDAK CHAKRABORTY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-51(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

deposit of Rs.40 lakhs by cheque in the appellant's bank account by the said two ladies for the purpose of their investments in securities for the reasons that as per Sale Deed, they had received the said amount as sale consideration of their property. He, however, disbelieved the cash payments of Rs.60 lakhs by the said ladies towards investment

ITO,WARD-41(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SUBRATA SAHA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ]

cash deposits of Rs.27,31,600/- to the bank a/c. maintained with Standard Chartered Bank.Bidhan Sarani, Shyambazar.Kolkata, should not be added to the total income as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the I.T.Act, 1961, and compliance in this regard should reach the undersigned by 24.12.2009. The A.R.. of the ITA No.226/Kol/2014-Shri Subrata Saha A.Y.2006-07 3 assessee filed a letter

SHRI BIMAL SINGH KOTHARI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2013-14

house property income. We find no merit in Revenue’s instant argument as the sole issue before us is that of explanation of the impugned cash deposits

ASHOK VIKRAM PODDAR,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE -34, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

house property, capital gain and other sources. Accordingly, the assessee has called upon to explain the source of deposit. The assessee replied before the AO that the cash

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

properties, it is quite clear that he himself is a person of worth and the persons from whom he has claimed to have received gift is not so much affluent. This is clear from the fact that one of the person Swapan Das who is the brother in law of the assessee and he has claimed to have gifted

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

House property NIL Income from Business or profession 29,58,419.00 Income from capital gains NIL Income from other sources NIL Less: Deduction under Section 80P of the 29,58,419.00 Income Tax Act, 1961 Total income NIL 4. The return was selected for scrutiny through computer assisted scrutiny system (CASS) The Learned come Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) Burdwan

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)

House property NIL Income from Business or profession 29,58,419.00 Income from capital gains NIL Income from other sources NIL Less: Deduction under Section 80P of the 29,58,419.00 Income Tax Act, 1961 Total income NIL 4. The return was selected for scrutiny through computer assisted scrutiny system (CASS) The Learned come Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) Burdwan

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

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

property and also made addition of Rs.67,33,100/- towards cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee whereas the Ld. Pr. CIT has stated that the Assessing Officer has added lesser amount by deducting the total cash expenditure shown by the assessee on the construction of the house

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

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

property and also made addition of Rs.67,33,100/- towards cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee whereas the Ld. Pr. CIT has stated that the Assessing Officer has added lesser amount by deducting the total cash expenditure shown by the assessee on the construction of the house

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

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

property and also made addition of Rs.67,33,100/- towards cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee whereas the Ld. Pr. CIT has stated that the Assessing Officer has added lesser amount by deducting the total cash expenditure shown by the assessee on the construction of the house

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

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

property and also made addition of Rs.67,33,100/- towards cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee whereas the Ld. Pr. CIT has stated that the Assessing Officer has added lesser amount by deducting the total cash expenditure shown by the assessee on the construction of the house

COASTAL FERTILISERS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-15(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

properties. So far as this fact of withdrawing of cash is concerned the same has not been disputed by the Revenue authorities at any stage. The assessee’s claim is very simple that the source of cash deposit of Rs. 94,50,000/- is the cash withdrawn of Rs. 1,02,75,000/- on various dates during the year itself

DCIT,CIRCLE-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. THE SATURDAY CLUB LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

House Property without giving cognizance to the fact that the rental income has been earned from the corporate member, hence was not included in the total income by the appellant as the property was let out to one of its members. It is also well settled law that a club cannot earn from its own members. I also find that

THE SATURDAY CLUB LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

House Property without giving cognizance to the fact that the rental income has been earned from the corporate member, hence was not included in the total income by the appellant as the property was let out to one of its members. It is also well settled law that a club cannot earn from its own members. I also find that

THE SATURDAY CLUB LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

House Property without giving cognizance to the fact that the rental income has been earned from the corporate member, hence was not included in the total income by the appellant as the property was let out to one of its members. It is also well settled law that a club cannot earn from its own members. I also find that

SRI RAMESH KUMAR BAHETI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-38(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 47/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12

house property and income from other sources being interest received from advancing of loans and on deposits from bank. For A.Y.2011-12 the assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.1,58,969/-.The Assessee had one bank account in his name with ICICI Bank Ltd., wherein cash

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MAA AMBA TOWERS LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2012-13

deposit of cash prior to clearance of the cheques in assessee's favour. All these facts and documents considered cumulatively establish that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving creditworthiness of the share subscribers and the genuineness of the transactions. In terms of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Lovely Exports

GAUTAM KUMAR MITRA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 54, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 07/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2006-07

House Property”. 10. The next issue before the AO was with regard to explanation with regard to unsecured loans appearing in the revised balance sheet filed in the course of assessment proceedings by the Assessee before the AO. There was unsecured loan in the liability side of the balance sheet of Rs.1,71,67,483/-. The Assessee explained sources