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

property in common pool, it will be an income of the 'HUF', however, the same will be exempt from taxation as the I.T.A No. 2244/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No 12 Shri Gyanchand M. Bardia vs. ITO individual members of an 'HUF' have been included in the meaning of 'relative' as provided in the explanation to section 56(2 )(vii

ASHA VIJAY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-28(2),KOL, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Rajesh Kumar

house before accounting year 2014-15 then no income could be deemed on account of lower payment of purchase price. In support of his contention, he filed a Page 3 of 7 I.T.A. No.: 401/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Asha Vijay. paperbook and placed on record six decisions. According to him, in all these decisions it has been laid down

ITO, WARD - 11(3), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. LNB RENEWABLE ENERGY PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

vii b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal filed by the Revenue in this respect is unjustified and without any substance and is liable to be dismissed in limine. 2.That the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was fully justified in accepting the Valuation Report obtained from the Income Tax registered Valuer for issue

DAMODAR DHARA, ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-27(1), HALDIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 414/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Damodar Dhara,......................................Appellant Thekuachak, Kumarchak, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur-721652 [Pan: Aiupd7241C] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-27(1), Haldia, Dubey House, Basudebpur, Talpukur, Khanjanchak, Haldia, Midnapore (East)-721602 Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr.D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

property by an amount exceeding fifty thousand rupees, the income should be added to the income of the assessee as deemed income under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The ld. A.R. contended before us that the disclosure was made by the assessee during the year suo motu to the tune of Rs.84,40,690/-, which

BASABDUTTA DUTTA. ,BANKURA vs. ITO,WARD- 3(1), KENDUADIHI, , KENDUADIHI

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.868/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Basabdutta Dutta…………………..……………………....………....Appellant Kayasthapara, P.O+Dist – Bankura, Pin-722101. [Pan: Adtpd8748C] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Bankura….................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate & D.K. Sen, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sallong Yaden, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 13, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 11, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.07.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A)(Nfac) In Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Erred In Confirming Disallowance On Account Of Exemption Of Rs.1,65,52,344.00 Claimed U/S 54F On Return Of Income. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A)(Nfac) In Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Is Not Justified To Confirm Addition Of Rs.7,38,588.00 Made U/S 56(2)(Vii) 3. For That The Appellant Reserves His Right To Add To, To Alter, To Amend The Grounds & To Adduce Paper & Document At The Time Of Hearing.”

property at Rs.2,22,38,588/-. The Assessing Officer thus added Rs.7,38,588/- invoking provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. 8. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions so made by the Assessing Officer. 9. The ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the difference between the value mentioned in the transfer deed

VIJAY SHANKAR PANDEY,KOLKATA vs. WARD 33(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No. 695/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Vijay Shankar Pandey,………………..………Appellant 4/7A, Commerce House, 2, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkata-700013 [Pan:Afspp7040Q] -Vs.- Assessing Officer,……………….…..….…....Respondent Ward-33(2), Kolkata, 10 Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Ms. Sarita Chobey, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: June 24, 2025 O R D E R

property as per Stamp Duty Authority from the consideration amount shall not be chargeable to Income tax under the head ‘Income from Other Sources’ under the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on or before 19.11.2018. However, the assessee did not file any explanation in this regard till date. In absence

KANHA VILLA LLP,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 29(1), , KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act is liable to be deleted. VI. FOR THAT the impugned orders of the Learned CIT (Appeals) as also the Learned Assessment Unit are otherwise erroneous in law and/or on facts and is liable to be set aside. VII. FOR THAT the appellant craves indulgence to add, amend, alter and/or modify

GOUTAM GHOSH,HOWRAH vs. P.C.I.T., KOLKATA - 13, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

56(2)(x) did not arise at all. 6. FOR THAT even otherwise the order of PCIT is bad in law as it travelled beyond the Show Cause Notice initially issued u/s 263. 7. FOR THAT when the Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi completed the assessment, as per the law as laid down in the statute and rightly followed

HARSHVARDHAN SARAF,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-29,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

56(2)(vii) of Rs.1,19,76,350/- on account of difference in the market value of the flat is contrary to provisions of law and the addition is arbitrary, excessive and illegal. 2 Harshvardhan Saraf, AY 2016-17 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the action of the CIT(A) to confirm

BISWADIP GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLIE - 1(1), I.T.,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

property was ₹41,92,500/-. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. 'AO') noted that the transaction amount related to the person was ₹16,18,438/- whereas the stamp duty value was ₹41,92,500/- and thus, the difference amount of ₹25,74,062/- had escaped assessment. The assessment of the assessee was reopened

UNITED BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 36(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.546 To 548/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2017-18 United Bank Of India Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd……Appellant 14/4, Sovaram Bysak Street, Kolkata-700007 [Pan:Aaaau1388A] Vs. Ito, Ward-36(4), Kolkata….…….....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri G. Banerjee, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 02, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 27, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders All Dated 28.07.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since, The Facts & Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical, Hence These Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. The Appeal In Ita No.546/Kol/2022 For Assessment Year 2015-16 Is Taken As Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts. 2. Ita 546/Kol/2022 – The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

56 of the Act. In view of this, the claim of the assessee that the said interest I.T.A Nos.546 to 548/Kol/2022 Assessment years: 2015-16 to 2017-18 United Bank of India Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd income earned by the assessee from its funds deposited in commercial bank is eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2

UNITED BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-36(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.546 To 548/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2017-18 United Bank Of India Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd……Appellant 14/4, Sovaram Bysak Street, Kolkata-700007 [Pan:Aaaau1388A] Vs. Ito, Ward-36(4), Kolkata….…….....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri G. Banerjee, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 02, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 27, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders All Dated 28.07.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since, The Facts & Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical, Hence These Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. The Appeal In Ita No.546/Kol/2022 For Assessment Year 2015-16 Is Taken As Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts. 2. Ita 546/Kol/2022 – The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

56 of the Act. In view of this, the claim of the assessee that the said interest I.T.A Nos.546 to 548/Kol/2022 Assessment years: 2015-16 to 2017-18 United Bank of India Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd income earned by the assessee from its funds deposited in commercial bank is eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2

UNITED BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-36(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.546 To 548/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2017-18 United Bank Of India Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd……Appellant 14/4, Sovaram Bysak Street, Kolkata-700007 [Pan:Aaaau1388A] Vs. Ito, Ward-36(4), Kolkata….…….....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri G. Banerjee, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 02, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 27, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders All Dated 28.07.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since, The Facts & Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical, Hence These Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. The Appeal In Ita No.546/Kol/2022 For Assessment Year 2015-16 Is Taken As Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts. 2. Ita 546/Kol/2022 – The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

56 of the Act. In view of this, the claim of the assessee that the said interest I.T.A Nos.546 to 548/Kol/2022 Assessment years: 2015-16 to 2017-18 United Bank of India Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd income earned by the assessee from its funds deposited in commercial bank is eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2

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

56(2)(viib) has been inserted into the Income Tax Act w. e. f 01.04.2013 only and the justification of the premium in such respect for AY 2008-09 cannot be called for by the AO. 7.2. Without prejudice, the shareholders have been assessed by the income tax department vide order u/s 143(3) or 147 and since they have

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

56(2)(viib) has been inserted into the Income Tax Act w. e. f 01.04.2013 only and the justification of the premium in such respect for AY 2008-09 cannot be called for by the AO. 7.2. Without prejudice, the shareholders have been assessed by the income tax department vide order u/s 143(3) or 147 and since they have

PINKY AGARWAL ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

56 (Cal), and also examining that the facts of the case are different with that of Swati Bajaj (Supra) and the same being not applicable in the case and has held as follows:- “9. We have considered the rival contentions and gone through the record. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NRA Steelin the case of “PCIT

PRATIK AGARWAL BENEFICIARY TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, C.C.-3(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

56 (Cal), and also examining that the facts of the case are different with that of Swati Bajaj (Supra) and the same being not applicable in the case and has held as follows:- “9. We have considered the rival contentions and gone through the record. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NRA Steelin the case of “PCIT

M/S. GATEWAY FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC - 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

56 (Cal), and also examining that the facts of the case are different with that of Swati Bajaj (Supra) and the same being not applicable in the case and has held as follows:- “9. We have considered the rival contentions and gone through the record. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NRA Steelin the case of “PCIT