GURUPADA MAJI,PURULIA vs. ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE - 2,, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

u/s 271 DA was received on his email id gmalikyc@gmail.com which is the registered email for the e-filing portal of Income Tax. 3. Also, it was informed that no physical delivery of the order was acknowledged from our end. 5.1 The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the last 2 contentions after verifying the facts and in respect of the assessee

GURUPADA MAJI,PURULIA vs. ADDL. C.I.T., CENTRAL RANGE - 2,, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

u/s 271 DA was received on his email id gmalikyc@gmail.com which is the registered email for the e-filing portal of Income Tax. 3. Also, it was informed that no physical delivery of the order was acknowledged from our end. 5.1 The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the last 2 contentions after verifying the facts and in respect of the assessee

RAHUL SPRINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,PANAGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -1, DURGAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 68 and imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) while not giving proper opportunity to the appellant for explaining the issues related to the additions. 2. That the Appellant craves leave to add any additional grounds or modify, withdrew any grounds as made hereinabove at the time of hearing proceeding.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee

NEHA DIWAN,HINDMOTOR vs. ITO WARD - 23(1), HOOGHLY

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961. 17. That the appellant craves leave to adduce additional grounds and/or amend or withdraw any of the aforesaid grounds before or at the time of hearing of appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that as per the information available with the Income Tax Department

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

u/s 68 of the Act is concerned, we notice that the alleged amount constitutes unsecured loan of Rs.11,17,02,637/- from SDNPL and Rs.4,02,54,508/- from BBL. No details were filed by the assessee with regard to BBL but certain details were filed with respect of the loan from SDNPL. During the course of appellate proceedings, assessee

ITO, WARD - 3(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. C D STEEL PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013 14

46A of Income Tax Rules. We therefore affirm the CIT(A)’s lower appellate findings under challenge regarding the instant issue. 3. Next comes the Revenue’s second substantive ground that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting u/s 43B disallowance of ₹12,64,109/- made during the course of assessment. We notice herein

TIGERHILL TRADELINK PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 10(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Appellant is Dismissed

271(1)(c) and\n271B is baseless, as the primary addition itself is arbitrary,\nunsubstantiated, and legally untenable. Without a valid assessment,\npenalty proceedings cannot be sustained.\n9. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter, modify, or withdraw any\nground of appeal at or before the time of hearing.”\nII. ITA No.: 955/KOL/2025:\n“1. That the impugned order

TIGERHILL TRADELINK PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 10(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Appellant is Dismissed

271(1)(c) and\n271B is baseless, as the primary addition itself is arbitrary,\nunsubstantiated, and legally untenable. Without a valid assessment,\npenalty proceedings cannot be sustained.\n9. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter, modify, or withdraw any\nground of appeal at or before the time of hearing.”\nII. ITA No.: 955/KOL/2025:\n“1. That the impugned order

ITO, WARD - 25(4) , KOLKATA vs. ABHISHEK DAS , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.71/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

46A of the IT Rules, 1962. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 26.02,855/- towards unexplained credits in the assessee’s capital account without appreciating the facts brought on record by the A.O. and thereby failed to decided the issue on merits

DEBOTTOR TRUST ESTATE OF RAMMOHAN MULLICK,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and that or Revenue is dismissed

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

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Hence this ground of the assessee is partly allowed. Coming to Revenue appeal ITA 327/Kol/2013. 25. Grounds raised by the Revenue per its appeal are as under:- “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the L’d CIT(A)-XXXVI, Kolkata, erred in admitting additional evidence

HILTON COMMODITIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Hilton Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward 5(3) 9/12, Lal Bazar Street, Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Mercantile Building, Block-B, Chowringhee Square, Vs. 3Rd Floor, No.10, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacch1011P Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Ar Revenue By : Shri S Datta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025

46A of the Rules, which were also rejected, stating that the assessee has not given cogent/ proper reasons for having filed these evidences now. We note that the assessee has filed the various documents / evidences of the 8 share subscribers which comprised of share application, ITRs, audited financial statements, PAN Cards, allotments receipts, bank statements of source of funds, assessment

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. We do not see any additional evidence admitted in lower appellate proceedings of all much less in violation of said statutory provision. Its first substantive grievance raised in instant two appeals stands decline therefore. 4. Next comes Revenue’s second identical substantive grievance in both assessment years seeking to revive the Assessing Officer

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. We do not see any additional evidence admitted in lower appellate proceedings of all much less in violation of said statutory provision. Its first substantive grievance raised in instant two appeals stands decline therefore. 4. Next comes Revenue’s second identical substantive grievance in both assessment years seeking to revive the Assessing Officer

ITO, WARD-5(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. VANGUARD CREDIT & HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue (in ITA No

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.17 & 18/Kol/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05 I.T.O, Ward – 5(4), Kolkata Vs. M/S Vanguard Credit & Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 7C, K.S. Roy Road, Hastings Chamber, 1St Floor, Kolkata – 1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv 7665 G (Revenue/Department) .. (Assessee) Assessee By :Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca Revenue/Department By :Shri Kalyannath, Acit सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04/09/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/10/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2004-05 & 2005-06, Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Vi, Kolkata, Which In Turn Arise Out Of Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2.Since These Two Appeals Relate To Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years, Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Been Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience

u/s 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2.Since these two appeals relate to same assessee, different Assessment Years, identical issues are involved, therefore, these have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience M/s Vanguard Credit & Holdings Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.17 & 18/Kol/2015 Assessment

ITO, WARD-5(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. VANGUARD CREDIT & HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue (in ITA No

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.17 & 18/Kol/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05 I.T.O, Ward – 5(4), Kolkata Vs. M/S Vanguard Credit & Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 7C, K.S. Roy Road, Hastings Chamber, 1St Floor, Kolkata – 1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv 7665 G (Revenue/Department) .. (Assessee) Assessee By :Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca Revenue/Department By :Shri Kalyannath, Acit सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04/09/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/10/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2004-05 & 2005-06, Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Vi, Kolkata, Which In Turn Arise Out Of Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2.Since These Two Appeals Relate To Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years, Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Been Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience

u/s 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2.Since these two appeals relate to same assessee, different Assessment Years, identical issues are involved, therefore, these have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience M/s Vanguard Credit & Holdings Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.17 & 18/Kol/2015 Assessment

D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RBA EXPORTS PVT LTD, KOLKATA

The appeal of the revenue is treated as allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2007-08 D.C.I.T., Circle-4, -Vs.- M/S. Rba Exports Pvt.Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcr7429N) (Respondent) (Appellant)

u/s 115J8 as because out of the above loss of Rs. 671.67 lakh depreciation loss constitutes Rs. 564.49 lakh. It was therefore contended that the disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 70,99,318/- was arbitrary and based on surmises which are contrary to the facts of the case. 13. The CIT(A) agreed with the submissions of the Assessee

SILIGURI HEIGHTS PVT LTD,SILIGURI vs. ITO, WARD-1(3),, SILIGURI

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

u/s 68 of the IT Act. 5.3 From the above it can be seen that the though there were at least 3 weeks' time to avoid time barring, the assessment was completed hurriedly by the Ld. AO and thereby the assessee could not represent its case with necessary explanation Supported by documents. Under such circumstance, the appellant prays to allow

D.C.I.T CIR - 3,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CRESCENT FOUNDRY CO PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result the Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separately., Hence, income of the assessee is assessed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act as follows: Income assessee u/s 143(3) Rs.2,95,59,195/- Less: Deduction u/s 80HHC Rs. 85,84,324/- Total Income Rs.2,09,74,871/- Rounded off Rs.2,09,74,870/-“ The deduction u/s 80HHC which was originally allowed