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]

unexplained money deposited by the assessee into the bank account and the value of property assessed by the DVO. The Ld. AR submitted that there is no loss or detriment caused to the department but rather huge prejudice was suffered by the assessee by the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer by making huge additions despite the same being explained

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]

unexplained money deposited by the assessee into the bank account and the value of property assessed by the DVO. The Ld. AR submitted that there is no loss or detriment caused to the department but rather huge prejudice was suffered by the assessee by the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer by making huge additions despite the same being explained

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]

unexplained money deposited by the assessee into the bank account and the value of property assessed by the DVO. The Ld. AR submitted that there is no loss or detriment caused to the department but rather huge prejudice was suffered by the assessee by the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer by making huge additions despite the same being explained

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]

unexplained money deposited by the assessee into the bank account and the value of property assessed by the DVO. The Ld. AR submitted that there is no loss or detriment caused to the department but rather huge prejudice was suffered by the assessee by the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer by making huge additions despite the same being explained

UJJAL SINHA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2011-12 Ujjal Sinha……..…………………..………………….……….……….……Appellant 57/3, Ballygunge Circular Road, Ballygunge S.O, Kolkata 19. [Pan: Aeips4499F] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata……………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Lata Goyal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 13, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.08.2025 Of The Cit (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2011–12. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Filed His Return Of Income U/S.139(1) Of The Act For The A.Y. 2011-12 On 11/02/2012 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.19,12,432/-. In The Instant Case, A Search & Seizure Operation Was Conducted On 24.01.2012 In The Residential Premises Of The Assessee Wherein No Incriminating Material Was Found. Thereafter. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 153A/143(3) Of The Act On 31/03/2014 Assessing The Total Income At Rs.92,12,430/- Wherein The Following Two Additions To The Total Income Were Made:

house property by the assessee. He also submits that the said property was sold during the A.Y 2010-11 by the assessee and the sale proceeds was transferred to fixed deposit by the assessee and thereafter, during the assessment year under consideration, the said amount was withdrawn from the fixed deposit and loan was given to the company namely

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. We note that the assessee has withdrawn Rs. 20.00 Lacs from its saving bank account with Allahabad Bank, Raipur and again redeposited Rs. 19.75 Lacs on various dates. The gap between the withdrawals of the money and redeposits in the same bank account range between nine days to three months. The details

VINEET BAJORIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 45(4), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: S/Shri & Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.228, 229, 230 & 231/Kol/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vineet Bajoria, C/O. S.N.Ghosh Vs. Ito, Ward 45(4), Kolkata & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata Pan/Gir No. Adupb 1299 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr Dr

money from ICICI Bank of Rs.42 lakhs for house property on which interest was paid to the tune of Rs.4,36,922/-, which was claimed u/s.24(b) of the Act as deduction. The certificate from ICICI Bank to this effect is placed at page 18 of paper book. Therefore, we set aside the order of ld CIT(A) and direct

VINEET BAJORIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 45(4), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: S/Shri & Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.228, 229, 230 & 231/Kol/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vineet Bajoria, C/O. S.N.Ghosh Vs. Ito, Ward 45(4), Kolkata & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata Pan/Gir No. Adupb 1299 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr Dr

money from ICICI Bank of Rs.42 lakhs for house property on which interest was paid to the tune of Rs.4,36,922/-, which was claimed u/s.24(b) of the Act as deduction. The certificate from ICICI Bank to this effect is placed at page 18 of paper book. Therefore, we set aside the order of ld CIT(A) and direct

VINEET BAJORIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 45(4), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: S/Shri & Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.228, 229, 230 & 231/Kol/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vineet Bajoria, C/O. S.N.Ghosh Vs. Ito, Ward 45(4), Kolkata & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata Pan/Gir No. Adupb 1299 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr Dr

money from ICICI Bank of Rs.42 lakhs for house property on which interest was paid to the tune of Rs.4,36,922/-, which was claimed u/s.24(b) of the Act as deduction. The certificate from ICICI Bank to this effect is placed at page 18 of paper book. Therefore, we set aside the order of ld CIT(A) and direct

VINEET BAJORIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 45(4), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: S/Shri & Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.228, 229, 230 & 231/Kol/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vineet Bajoria, C/O. S.N.Ghosh Vs. Ito, Ward 45(4), Kolkata & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata Pan/Gir No. Adupb 1299 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr Dr

money from ICICI Bank of Rs.42 lakhs for house property on which interest was paid to the tune of Rs.4,36,922/-, which was claimed u/s.24(b) of the Act as deduction. The certificate from ICICI Bank to this effect is placed at page 18 of paper book. Therefore, we set aside the order of ld CIT(A) and direct

BHAGWATI DEVELOPERS, BISHNUPUR vs. I.T.O.WARD-26(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2166/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Bhagwati Developers,………………………..…Appellant Chandandaha Bibirhat, P.O. Charashyamdas P.S. Bishnupur, South 24-Parganas-700162 [Pan:Aakfb2520N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-26(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, Dakshin, 2, Gariahat Road, Kolkata-700031 Appearances By: Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Susanta Saha, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 21, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 29, 2025 O R D E R

properties for carrying on the business of undertaking, developing and building housing projects. The assessee failed to provide the explanation of huge cash withdrawal of Rs.10.81 lakhs during the financial year 2011-12 as well as nature and source of such deposit. After query from the ld. Assessing Officer, the assessee clarified that the firm has received Rs.20

SMRITI JAISWAL,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-33(2),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1224/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Smriti Jaiswal,…………………………..…………Appellant Flat 33, 86 Prince Golam Hossain Street, Kolkata-700032 [Pan:Afdpj6962N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………….Respondent Ward-33(2), Kolkata, 10B, Middleton Road, Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Shri Sankar Lal Poddar, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 11, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 28, 2024 O R D E R

house property income and income from proprietary business, M/s. Movie Max, which runs Popkorn Cinema at Galaxia Mall, Ranchi. Further, the assessee is also partner in M/s. Sujata Picture Palace along with another partner, Shri Dushyant Jaiswal. During the year under consideration, Sujata Cinema was gutted in fire on 10.02.2017 before filing of the income tax returns. A copy

SIDDHARTHA DAS,BOLPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), SURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

unexplained investment for purchase of property and accordingly added the sum of Rs. 23,50,000/-. The underlying facts are that the AO noted that the assessee has purchased a residential property at Mouza-Bolpur, Birbhum at a purchase consideration of Rs. 50,00,000/- . As per sale deed collected from D.S.R, Birbhum through notice

BIBHU PRASAD SAHOO,PURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 62(3), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

house property at Rs.7,15,295/- on the total rental receipt of Rs.10,32,000/- and income from other sources under the head income from interest of Rs.37,638/-. In response to the statutory notices received, the assessee filed various details like computation of total income and lease agreements. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO observed

VISH REALTY SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-5(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 250/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vish Realty Solutions Private Limited Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3), 55, Ezra Street Vs Kolkata 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcv9938N] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. Jhajharia, A/R Revenue By : Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/01/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -10 (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(E)”) Dt. 02/12/2019, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Io, Kolkata Erred In Passing An Order Dated 2Nd Of December, 2019 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant Without Allowing Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 10, Kolkata Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Share Application Money Ofrs. 5,86,00,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On Irrelevant Considerations & Arbitrary Grounds.

property. Nil income declared in the return for Assessment Year 2012-13 furnished on 30/09/2012. Case selected for scrutiny through CASS followed by issuance of notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. During the year under consideration, the assessee received share application money of Rs.5,86,00,000/-. The assessee was asked to furnish various details

ROHIT JAISWAL,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-49(1), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 548/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rohit Jaiswal Dcit, Circle 49(1) Vs Aj-55, Sector-It, Salt 169, Acharya Jagadish Chandra Lake, Kolkata-700 091 Bose Rd, West Bengal Kolkata-700 014 West Bengal [Pan : Acipj7386G] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent)

money u/s 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act and assessed income at ₹3,17,53,786/-. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and filed detailed submissions but ld. CIT (A) without specifically dealing with the two components of the additions, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that the ld. AO erred

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