I.T.O., WARD-44(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RITU SARAF, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 142(1) notice and also the 2(two) show-cause notices. The assessee also failed to produce Shri Rajesh Agarwal before the AO. The additions as mentioned above followed and the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act was levied for Rs. 5,57

I.T.O., WARD-44(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RITU SARAF, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 142(1) notice and also the 2(two) show-cause notices. The assessee also failed to produce Shri Rajesh Agarwal before the AO. The additions as mentioned above followed and the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act was levied for Rs. 5,57

ITO, WARD-44(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RITU SARAF, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 142(1) notice and also the 2(two) show-cause notices. The assessee also failed to produce Shri Rajesh Agarwal before the AO. The additions as mentioned above followed and the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act was levied for Rs. 5,57

ITO, WARD-44(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RITU SARAF, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 142(1) notice and also the 2(two) show-cause notices. The assessee also failed to produce Shri Rajesh Agarwal before the AO. The additions as mentioned above followed and the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act was levied for Rs. 5,57

ASCON INFRASTRUCTURE (INDIA) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 9(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

57,23,412/- is hereby sustained on merits and the grounds of appeal are dismissed. Ground No. 5: In this ground of appeal the appellant has challenged the leavy of penalty u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act which is consequential in nature. As the main ground of appeal does not hold its ground the consequential ground of appeal

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

M/S. TDK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),NADIA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 15. The Assessee craves leave to add to and/ or amend, alter, modify or rescind the grounds hereinabove before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 4. From perusal of the above grounds, we find that ground nos. 1 & 2 are general in nature which need no adjudication. Further

M/S. TDK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),NADIA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 15. The Assessee craves leave to add to and/ or amend, alter, modify or rescind the grounds hereinabove before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 4. From perusal of the above grounds, we find that ground nos. 1 & 2 are general in nature which need no adjudication. Further

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

57,145/- 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

AKRAM HOSSAIN MULLICK,HOWRAH vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Ld. AO also made disallowance of certain other expenses in respect of car, conveyance, food and welfare expenses, wages to delivery man after scrutinizing and verifying the records, Ld. AO arrived at an amount of Rs.1,57,702/- for these expenses and disallowed

PROVASH ADHIKARI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 46(4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Penalty Proceeding u/s, 271(1)(c) of LT. Act 1961 initiated separately. As per above discussion total income of the assesse is computed below:- Income as per ITR:Rs. 2,43,444/- Add: (as discussed above) Rs. 93,57,008/- Assessed income: Rs. 96,00,452/- R/O: Rs. 96,00,450/- Assessed u/s

MCNALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Ecospace, Campus 2B, 11F/12 Aayakar Bhavan, P-7, (Old Plot No. Aa Ii/Blk 3), Chowringhee Square, Vs New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata - 700069 North 24 Paragans, Kolkata - 7000156 (Pan: Aaccs5491A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Abhishek Sureka, Ar Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, Dr Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.10.2024 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-I, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Ays 2009-10 & 2013- 14, Dated 28.02.2018 & 13.03.2018 Respectively. Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience. Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Limited.: Ays: 2009-10 & 2013-14 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act as premature at this stage ignoring the fact that the Appellant has neither furnished inaccurate particulars of income nor concealed its income. That the Appellant craves leave to add, alter, supplements, amend, modify, substitute and/or rescind the grounds hereinabove before or at the time of hearing of this appeal

MCNALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Ecospace, Campus 2B, 11F/12 Aayakar Bhavan, P-7, (Old Plot No. Aa Ii/Blk 3), Chowringhee Square, Vs New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata - 700069 North 24 Paragans, Kolkata - 7000156 (Pan: Aaccs5491A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Abhishek Sureka, Ar Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, Dr Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.10.2024 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-I, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Ays 2009-10 & 2013- 14, Dated 28.02.2018 & 13.03.2018 Respectively. Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience. Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Limited.: Ays: 2009-10 & 2013-14 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act as premature at this stage ignoring the fact that the Appellant has neither furnished inaccurate particulars of income nor concealed its income. That the Appellant craves leave to add, alter, supplements, amend, modify, substitute and/or rescind the grounds hereinabove before or at the time of hearing of this appeal

MOHAMMED GYASUDDIN,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR.-30, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

57,90,708/- (Out of which there were cash withdrawals of Rs. 10,00,000/-). The AO was led to believe that the total income declared at Rs. 8,50,944/- on a turnover of Rs. 5,89,94,424/- did not allegedly match with the transactions visible in the bank account in HSBC Bank (supra). Thereafter

ASHUTOSH DAS,DURGAPUR vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 1,, DURGAPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. Nos. 1942 & 1954/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Ashutosh Das,……………………………….….……Appellant C/O. Jain Vinod K & Associates, 41A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Suite No. 613, 6Th Floor, Kolkata-700017 [Pan:Adfpd9215N] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,...Respondent Circle-1, Durgapur, Aayakar Bhawan, City Centre, Durgapur-734101 Appearances By: Shri Vinod Kr. Jain, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: October 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 18, 2024 O R D E R

u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act. He, therefore, has submitted that the assessee may be given an opportunity to furnish the true and actual facts before the Assessing Officer. 6. Considering the above submissions of the assessee, we are of the view that the interests of justice will be well-served if the assessee is given an opportunity

ASHUTOSH DAS,DURGAPUR vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 1,, DURGAPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. Nos. 1942 & 1954/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Ashutosh Das,……………………………….….……Appellant C/O. Jain Vinod K & Associates, 41A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Suite No. 613, 6Th Floor, Kolkata-700017 [Pan:Adfpd9215N] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,...Respondent Circle-1, Durgapur, Aayakar Bhawan, City Centre, Durgapur-734101 Appearances By: Shri Vinod Kr. Jain, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: October 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 18, 2024 O R D E R

u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act. He, therefore, has submitted that the assessee may be given an opportunity to furnish the true and actual facts before the Assessing Officer. 6. Considering the above submissions of the assessee, we are of the view that the interests of justice will be well-served if the assessee is given an opportunity

DIPANSHU GUPTA,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 37(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed\nfor statistical purposes

57,22,230/-, From the ITR filed by the assessee\nfor the A.Y. 2015-16, it is noticed that the assessee had shown income from\nbusiness of Rs. 3,35,055/- as commission income. Therefore, it can be\nconstrued that the assessee had not considered commission income of Rs.\n53,87,175/-and the amount

RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED,DELHI vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1)/KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

57,465/- and (ii) on account of undisclosed investment of Rs.1,19,95,195/-. 4. In the appellate proceeding, the assessee did challenge the validity of assessment proceeding u/s. 143 on the ground of borrowed satisfaction. However, the issue of invalid approval u/s. 151 of the Act was not there and was raised for the first time before

RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

57,465/- and (ii) on account of undisclosed investment of Rs.1,19,95,195/-. 4. In the appellate proceeding, the assessee did challenge the validity of assessment proceeding u/s. 143 on the ground of borrowed satisfaction. However, the issue of invalid approval u/s. 151 of the Act was not there and was raised for the first time before