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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

133(6)\nWith reference to your above captioned letter on the subject mentioned hereinabove, we furnish the\nfollowing information/document:\n1. Opening Balance as on 01.04.2010:\nRs. Nil\n2. Amount of Loan advanced during the F.Y. 2010-11 & date & mode of payment::\nRs. 1,00,00,000/- on 02.07.11 through RTGS from Karnataka Bank.\n3. Amount of Repayment received during

CITYSTAR GANGULY PROJECTS LLP,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 9, , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm ]

Properties Investment (2014) reported in 51 taxmann 387 (SC) where it has been held that - ' PAN cannot be treated as sufficient disclosure of identity of the person. PANs are allowed on the basis of application without actual de facto clarification of identity or ascertainment of activities, nature of business activity and are just as to 2 I.T.A No.1103/Kol/2019

SAVERA COMMOTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 5(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

House, Room\nNo.312, 1, R.N. Mukherjee Road,\n3rd Floor, Kolkata-700001, West\nBengal\n(Appellant)\nITO, Ward 5(3)\nAaykar Bhawan, P-7,\nChowringhee Square, Kolkata-\n700069, West Bengal\n(Respondent)\nPAN No. AAMCS1790G\nAssessee by\nRevenue by\nShri Akkal Dudhwewala, AR\nShri V Vidhyadhar, DR\nDate of hearing:\nDate of pronouncement:\n13.01.2026\n10.02.2026\nORDER\nPer Rajesh Kumar, AM:\nThis

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

ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. BURNPUR CEMENT LTD., ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.28/Kol/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Acit, Circle-I, Lower Vs. Brunpur Cement Ltd., 141, Chelidanga, Asansol-4 Cement House, Saradapally, Ashok Nagar, Asansol, District-Burdwan- 713304 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacca 1999 B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Niraj Kumar Cit Dr "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.M.Surana Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26/08/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 19/10/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per M.Balaganesh, Am This Appeal Of The Assessee Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Cit(A), Asansol, In Appeal No.296/Cit(A)/Asl/R-I/Asl/10-11 Dated 31.10.2011 Passed Against The Order Of Assessment Framed U/S.144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

House, 6,00,000 60,00,000 12,00,000 72,00,000 Exims Pvt. Seal Danga, Ltd. Kulti Burdwan- 713343 Business 4. 1.11.07 Octal 5, Ramani 10,00,000 1,00,00,000 20,00,000 1,20,00,000 Mercantile Ltd. Chatterjee Street Kolkata- 700029 Business 5. 1.11.07 Tarkeshwar A 07, Kalyani

ITO, WARD-36(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI RAGHU NANDAN MODI, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

133(6) of the Act. The AO further observed as the assessee is not drawing any salary the value of the perquisites u/s. 17(2) r.w.s Rule 3 of the IT Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IT Rules’) will be nil. The AO also observed that ITA No.2186-87/Kol/2014 & CO 03-04/Kol/2015 A.Ys

VIJAY MITTAL ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 1(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property, income from partnership firm, interest income and income from capital gains. For the Assessment Year 2005-06, he filed his return of income on 30/10/2005, declaring total income of Rs. 18,50,776/-. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act on 05/09/2006 and thereafter completed best judgment assessment

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

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]

section 142(1) issued by him. However, as directed by your honour, to verify the claim of advance, letter u/ s. 133(6) of the Act was issued to M/ s. Trishakti Infradev Pvt. Ltd. and reply from the said' party has been received. The party furnished the relevant details/information. A copy of the reply along with details/documents furnished

ITO, WD-30(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S S. L. D. CORPORATION, KOLKATA

Accordingly, Ground No.5 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

house property” notwithstanding the nature of property being stock in trade or the object of the assessee firm to exploit the property commercially as held recently by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Dadarkar & Associates. Therefore, M/s. S. L. D Corporation I.T.A No.1220/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10 we set aside the impugned order

BALAKA VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 160 & 161/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), 9/12, Lal Bazar Street Vs Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcb2610B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R & Saurav Gupta, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Instant Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”). Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 29/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act & Ita No. 161/Kol/2023, Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 28/11/2023, Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act, For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds In Both These Appeals, But The Effective Issue Raised In Ita No. 161/Kol/2024 Is Against The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act For Unexplained Share Capital Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) & In Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Addition Made

Property Investments (P) Ltd -vs- ITO [2023] 152 taxmann.com 256 (Karnataka) (viii) PCIT -vs- Himachal Fibres Ltd. [2018] 98 taxmann.com 173 (SC) (ix) PCIT -vs- Himachal Fibres Ltd. [2018] 98 taxmann.com 172 (Delhi) CIT -vs- Dataware Private Limited ITAT No. 263 of 2011 : GA No. 2856 of 2011 (x) 7 I.T.A. No. 160 & 161/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Balaka Vinimay

BALAKA VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 160 & 161/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), 9/12, Lal Bazar Street Vs Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcb2610B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R & Saurav Gupta, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Instant Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”). Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 29/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act & Ita No. 161/Kol/2023, Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 28/11/2023, Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act, For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds In Both These Appeals, But The Effective Issue Raised In Ita No. 161/Kol/2024 Is Against The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act For Unexplained Share Capital Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) & In Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Addition Made

Property Investments (P) Ltd -vs- ITO [2023] 152 taxmann.com 256 (Karnataka) (viii) PCIT -vs- Himachal Fibres Ltd. [2018] 98 taxmann.com 173 (SC) (ix) PCIT -vs- Himachal Fibres Ltd. [2018] 98 taxmann.com 172 (Delhi) CIT -vs- Dataware Private Limited ITAT No. 263 of 2011 : GA No. 2856 of 2011 (x) 7 I.T.A. No. 160 & 161/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Balaka Vinimay

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

6 2008-09 has allowed the issue in favour of assessee. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced below:- “21. We have given a very careful consideration to the rival submissions. The provisions of section 14A as originally introduced and as amended from time to time as well as the insertion of Rule 8D was subject-matter of several

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

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

133(6) of the I.T Act, the same has been shown as payment and duly reflected in the Bank Account, and for that reason, the A/R of the appellant admitted their failure to substantiate their claim of reversal entry. As regard Jai Ambe Multi Trade (P) Ltd, mere entries shown in unsigned party ledger, not reconciled with Books of accounts

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

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

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

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