ALLAHABAD BANK,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

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

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

133 ITD 343 where it was observed as under : “Business income—Loss—Loss on account of valuation of interest rate swap— Vide Notification No. 9949, dt. 25th Jan., 1996, under s. 145, all anticipated losses are to be taken into account in computing business income—That the assessee has suffered loss in holding contract of interest rate swap

ITO, WARD - 10(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. PRATAP PROPERTIES LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

house' property income by holding that the fair rental value cannot exceed the rent received. 3) That the appellant craves to add, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing . 3. Ground no. 3 is general in nature. Hence, the same is dismissed. 4. Ground no. 1 is against the action

SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR TEKRIWAL,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 30(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

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

section as well. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court, this court cannot decide otherwise. Hence we dismiss the appeal without any order as to costs.” 13. It can be seen from the above decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court that Amendment to the provisions of Sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act, by the Finance

ABC INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Abc India Limited Dcit, Circle 11(1) 40/8, Ballygunj, Circular Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Chowringhee Kolkata, West Bengal-700019 Square, Kolkata-700069 Vs. West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacca2035J Assessee By : Shri S.K. Pransukhka, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.04.2026

133(6) of the Act, as noted in the foregoing paragraph. Therefore, even though the Deed of Conveyance was executed on 11.03.2016, the plot of land was already transferred to the purchaser in the financial year 2009-10 and thus, for all intents and purposes, the land was transferred in the assessment year 2010-11. 13. We find that

GARUD CREDIT & HOLDING PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 9(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 1270/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Garud Credit & Holding Pvt. Limited,.........Appellant D.J. Shah & Co., 2, Elgin Road, Kolkata-700020 [Pan: Aaacg9791P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-9(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Veekaas S. Sharma, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 06, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 01, 2023 O R D E R

House International Pvt. Ltd., ITA Nos. 112, 111 and 110/2018, dated 07.08.2018 (2018) 408 ITR 561 (MP), against which the SLP filed by the Revenue has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 31. Further we find that issuance of notice under section 133(6) of the Act tantamounts to be a sufficient enquiry as held

I.T.O WD - 36(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SHREE KRISHNA DEVELOPERS, KOLKATA

Bench: Sh. P.M.Jagtap & Sh. S.S. Viswanethra Ravi[Assessment Year: 2006-07] Vs Ito, M/S. Shree Krishna Developers, Ward-36(2), 78, Bentinck Street, 5Th Floor, Kolkata. Kolkata-700001. Pan-Aaaas9791F (Appellant) (Respondent) [Assessment Year: 2007-08] Vs Ito, Shree Krishna Developers, Ward-36(2), 133, Canning Street, Kolkata. ‘Chopra House’, Kolkata-700001. Pan-Aaaas9791F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Shallong Yaden, Addl. Cit Dr Respondent By Sh.D.S.Damle, Fca Date Of Hearing 18.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 31.08.2018 Order

133, Canning Street, Kolkata. ‘Chopra House’, Kolkata-700001. PAN-AAAAS9791F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Shallong Yaden, Addl. CIT DR Respondent by Sh.D.S.Damle, FCA Date of Hearing 18.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement 31.08.2018 ORDER PER P.M.JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER These two appeals filed by the Revenue for AY 2006-07 & 2007-08 involve a common issue and the same therefore have been

M/S DHARA DEALERS PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-13(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

house property the AO issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to various parties from whom such advances were taken by the assessee company and the replies received were accepted by the AO, which shows non- application of mind 3 I.T.A. No. 523/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Dhara Dealers Pvt. Ltd. d) The AO failed to establish

SHRI VIJAY MAHIPAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 502/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Vijay Mahipal -Vs- Ito, Ward-4(4), Kolkata [Pan: Aekpm 9834 J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

133(6) of the Act to Wagholi Properties Pvt. Ltd. on 06.11.2015. Reply was filed by the said party on 26.11.2015 directly before the ld. AO wherein the flat cost was confirmed at Rs. 2,37,47,500/- + other charges of Rs. 22,73,575/- . 5. The assessee sold shares of K.B. Industrial Alloys

M/S JALAN CEMENT WORKS LTD,KOLKATA vs. C.I.T KOLKATA - I, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2008-09 M/S. Jalan Cement Works V/S. Cit, Kolkata-1 Ltd 2Nd Floor, Room No Aayakar Bhawan, 202, 81, Netji Subhas Road, P-7, Chowringhee Kolkata-700 001 Square, Kolkata- [Pan No.: Aaacj6788R] 700 069 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

House property, capital gains and income from other sources. In the instant case the income of the assessee is mainly from long term capital gain, therefore it is out of the purview of the Explanation to Section 73 of the Act. Income here means the net income. In this connection we rely in the order of Hon’ble High Court

ITO, WARD - 10(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MAGNUM CLOTHING (P) LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2002-03 Ito, Ward-10(2), 3 V/S. Magnum Clothing (P) Ltd. Govt. Place (West), C/O Chopra & Company, Kolkata-700 001 Chartered Accountants, Chopra House, 133, Canning Street, Kolkata-700 001 [Pan No.Aaccm 0783 F]

House, 133, Canning Street, Kolkata-700 001 [PAN No.AACCM 0783 F] अपीलाथ" /Appellant .. ""यथ"/Respondent Sk. Z. H. Tanweer, JCIT-DR अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 17-03-2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 19-04-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AXIS OVERSEAS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc 1(1), Kolkata Axis Overseas Limited Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, 21A, Shakespeare Sarani, Vs. 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700107, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagca7497L Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri P.N. Barnwal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.12.2025

133(6) of the Act were not responded by these parties but the facts remains that these investments were purchased by the assessee in the earlier Axis Overseas Limited; A.Y. 2013-14 assessment years and were accepted by the Revenue. In our opinion, when the investments were accepted in the preceding assessment years, the same cannot be doubted when these

SIMOCO SYSTEMS AND INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO WARD 2 (1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2018-19

housing during the previous year 2017-18. The company had e-filed its return of income for AY 2018-19 on 26/09/2018 declaring total income at Rs.NIL. The assessee had shown deemed total income u/s 115JB of the Act at Rs.69,07,501/-. The return was revised on 12/10/2018 showing the same total income as well as the income

MAITHAN CERAMIC LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 7(1),, KOLKATA

Properties Pvt Ltd 30.06.2010 5,000,000 Chq No 10,675,616 5,000,00 1.R.N.Mkukherjee, 5th Floor 02.07.2010 5,000,000 Chq 750,685 75,069 10,000,00 Kolkata-700 001 31.03.2011 10,675,61 PA No. AACCA 2514J Harvard Trading Pvt Ltd 22.06.2010 4,000,000 RTGS No 4,279,123 4,000,00 1,R.N.Mkukherjee

ACIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S R. K. COMMERCIAL LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1330/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2007-08)

house property for Rs.11,00,000/- cannot treat the same as cash credit. Suspicion cannot replace the real evidential documents. Simply by arguing it to be a case of manipulation the Revenue is not supposed to succeed in their contention without proper evidence. Mukesh R. Marolia vs. Addl. CIT (2005) 6 SOT 245 (Mumbai), Asstt. CIT vs. Claridges Investments & Finances

ACIT, CIR-29, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SMT SURJIT KAUR UBEROI, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 181/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Acit, Circle-29, Kolkata -Vs- Smt. Surjit Kaur Uberoi [Pan: Aanup 4301 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 13/Kol/2016 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No. 181/Kol/2016 ) Assessment Year : 2012-13 Smt. Surjit Kaur Uberoi -Vs- Acit, Circle-29, Kolkata [Pan: Aanup 4301 P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 02.02.2015 for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2 ITA No.181/Kol/2016& C.O.13/Kol/2017 Smt. Surjit Kaur Oberoi A.Yr.2012-13 2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal of the revenue is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in directing

M/S. DWARKA GOODS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

133(6)- Annexure G 8 Tabular statements showing details of names, addresses, PAN number, nature of receipts and amount received by the investor companies along with supporting documents like bank statements along acknowledgement etc of such source parties- Annexure H On perusal of aforesaid documents and evidences, the source of the money received and the credit worthiness of the investor

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

133(6) vide reply dated 09.05.2023 and have confirmed the loan transactions with the appellant company and that all the transaction have been made through banking channels. Further, M/s Primary Investment Consultants Pvt Ltd in its reply submitted before the AO all the details regarding loan transaction with the appellant company has also submitted source of loan received. And also

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

133(6) vide reply dated 09.05.2023 and have confirmed the loan transactions with the appellant company and that all the transaction have been made through banking channels. Further, M/s Primary Investment Consultants Pvt Ltd in its reply submitted before the AO all the details regarding loan transaction with the appellant company has also submitted source of loan received. And also