TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

145 taxmann.com 420 (SC) have held in para 3 that in view of the statement made, we direct that the Education cess paid by the respondent-assessee would not be allowed as an expenditure under section 37 read with 40(a)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Hence, these grounds of appeal are dismissed. 6. Ground Nos. 2

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

145 taxmann.com 420 (SC) have held in para 3 that in view of the statement made, we direct that the Education cess paid by the respondent-assessee would not be allowed as an expenditure under section 37 read with 40(a)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Hence, these grounds of appeal are dismissed. 6. Ground Nos. 2

MADINA RICE MILL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIR. 4(4) , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp

145(3) of the Act and made certain additions completing the assessment on 21st March, 2022. As the assessee could not produce the books of account, ld. AO initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271A of the Act by issuance of notice u/s 274 of the Act. Thereafter, penalty proceedings were carried out, during the course of which assessee submitted that

MADINA RICE MILL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR. 4(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp

145(3) of the Act and made certain additions completing the assessment on 21st March, 2022. As the assessee could not produce the books of account, ld. AO initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271A of the Act by issuance of notice u/s 274 of the Act. Thereafter, penalty proceedings were carried out, during the course of which assessee submitted that

MADINA RICE MILL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp

145(3) of the Act and made certain additions completing the assessment on 21st March, 2022. As the assessee could not produce the books of account, ld. AO initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271A of the Act by issuance of notice u/s 274 of the Act. Thereafter, penalty proceedings were carried out, during the course of which assessee submitted that

MADINA RICE MILL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR. 4(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp

145(3) of the Act and made certain additions completing the assessment on 21st March, 2022. As the assessee could not produce the books of account, ld. AO initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271A of the Act by issuance of notice u/s 274 of the Act. Thereafter, penalty proceedings were carried out, during the course of which assessee submitted that

MADINA RICE MILL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 4(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp

145(3) of the Act and made certain additions completing the assessment on 21st March, 2022. As the assessee could not produce the books of account, ld. AO initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271A of the Act by issuance of notice u/s 274 of the Act. Thereafter, penalty proceedings were carried out, during the course of which assessee submitted that

SUSHIL KUMAR AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

2,38,03,590/- which\nincluded the aforesaid income disclosed during the search action.\nThereafter, the assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on\n06.06.2014 accepting the return income of the assessee. In the meantime,\nthe AO initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB of the Act and\nimposed penalty @ 10% on the suo moto income offered

ANITA BASAK,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC 1(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Anita Basak Acit, Central Circle 1(1), C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Kolkata, Advocates, Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, 2, Garstin Place, 2 Nd Floor, Suite 110 Shanti Pally, 5 Th Floor, Vs. No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata, Eastern Metropolitian By Pass, West Bengal-700001, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahhpb5785B Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ruchika Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.12.2025

145(3) of the Act and the income of the assessee was estimated at the rate of 18% of the total turnover. Pertinent to note that the assessee has furnished all the information required by the ld. AO during the assessment proceedings. The ld. AO noted in the assessment order that a survey u/s 133 of the Act was conducted

DCIT,C.C-1(3),KOL, KOLKATA vs. M/S. NAVIN CONSTRUCTION & CREDIT PVT. LTD, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 526/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Navin Construction & Credit Central Circle – 1(3), Kolkata Vs Pvt. Ltd. 12, Government Place East Dalhousie Kolkata- 700069 [Pan : Aaacn9084E] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akkal Dudhewala, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Datta, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/08/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/10/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 24/03/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- "1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Erred In Law In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 15,19,57,145/- Made U/S 68 Of The I.T Act. 1961 Without Going Into Merits Of The Case & The Facts That Creditworthiness Of Both The Loan Creditors Could Not Be Proven As There Was No Rational Of The Fund Received By Both The Companies & In Turn Transferred The Fund In The Form Of Unsecured Loan To The Assessee Company Who Is The Ultimate Beneficiary. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Erred In Taking Into Consideration The Additional Evidence Regarding Unsecured Loan As Produced By The Assessee Without Allowing The Reasonable Opportunity To The Ao In Violation Of Rule 46A(1) Read With 46A(3) Of The Income Tax Rule 1962. 2

145/- and similarly genuineness of the future and option loss has also not been proved. 4.1. On the other hand, the Id. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued referring to the details paper books Volume I containing 67 pages, Volume II containing 64 pages and Volume III containing 195 pages and also referred to the judicial paper book wherein

RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaita Nos.78/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 &

penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice to each other. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, alter, withdraw or vary any grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of appeal proceedings.” 4. Facts of the case as stated in the order

RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaita Nos.78/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 &

penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice to each other. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, alter, withdraw or vary any grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of appeal proceedings.” 4. Facts of the case as stated in the order

RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaita Nos.78/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 &

penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice to each other. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, alter, withdraw or vary any grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of appeal proceedings.” 4. Facts of the case as stated in the order

M/S. N G BROTHERS,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 40, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

penalties were levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the NFAC (national Faceless Assessment Centre), Delhi for A.Y. 2014-15 and 2015-16 vide even order dated 15.06.2021. 2. As the facts and circumstances are similar in all the appeals and these all relates to the same assessee, these are being decided

M/S. N G BROTHERS,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 40, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

penalties were levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the NFAC (national Faceless Assessment Centre), Delhi for A.Y. 2014-15 and 2015-16 vide even order dated 15.06.2021. 2. As the facts and circumstances are similar in all the appeals and these all relates to the same assessee, these are being decided

M/S. N G BROTHERS,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 40, , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

penalties were levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the NFAC (national Faceless Assessment Centre), Delhi for A.Y. 2014-15 and 2015-16 vide even order dated 15.06.2021. 2. As the facts and circumstances are similar in all the appeals and these all relates to the same assessee, these are being decided

M/S. N G BROTHERS,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 40, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

penalties were levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the NFAC (national Faceless Assessment Centre), Delhi for A.Y. 2014-15 and 2015-16 vide even order dated 15.06.2021. 2. As the facts and circumstances are similar in all the appeals and these all relates to the same assessee, these are being decided

M/S. N G BROTHERS,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 40,, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

penalties were levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the NFAC (national Faceless Assessment Centre), Delhi for A.Y. 2014-15 and 2015-16 vide even order dated 15.06.2021. 2. As the facts and circumstances are similar in all the appeals and these all relates to the same assessee, these are being decided

MAA SHARADA ENTERPRISE,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-50(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 586/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Maa Sharada Enterprise,……..………….……Appellant Talbabnda Jugberia, Ghola, North 24-Parganas, Pin Code No.700110, West Bengal [Pan:Aatfm5656M] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-50(1), Kolkata, Income Tax Office, Manicktala, Civil Centre, Uttarapan Complex-Ds-Iv, Kolkata-700067 Appearances By: Shri Giridhar Dhelia, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kapil Mondal, Addl. Cit (Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: September 09, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 07, 2024 O R D E R

Penalty u/s 271AAC of the Act is initiated against the assessee separately”. 5. Appeal to the ld. CIT(Appeals) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 6. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee filed a written note. He submitted that the assessee has been dealing in pulses, wheat gram, flour and related products. It has achieved total sales