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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act depends on the outcome of the appeal on quantum addition in ITA No. 161/Kol/2024, we first taken up ITA No. 161/Kol/2024 for adjudication. 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in business and declared income of Rs.318/- in the original return of income furnished

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act depends on the outcome of the appeal on quantum addition in ITA No. 161/Kol/2024, we first taken up ITA No. 161/Kol/2024 for adjudication. 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in business and declared income of Rs.318/- in the original return of income furnished

BMW INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

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

penalty is not leviable on this amount which was treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act, for the reason that the explanation 4 to Section 271

NARAYAN BARTER PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-6(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act taxable at the rate of 30% u/s 115BBE of the Act. Penalty proceedings under section 271

BMW INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

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

u/s 68 of the Act is reduced from the total income then there was no difference between the returned income and assessed income and the tax sought to be evaded would be nil. Thus, the penalty is not leviable under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by virtue of Explanation 4 to Section 271

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

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 12.1. During the year, the assessee took unsecured loans from two parties namely; Hopewell Dealcom Pvt. ltd. amounting to ₹60,00,000/- and from M/s Shresth Builders (P) ltd. amounting to ₹1,11,63,213/-. However, while passing the order the ld. AO made additions in respect of certain loans from some

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

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 12.1. During the year, the assessee took unsecured loans from two parties namely; Hopewell Dealcom Pvt. ltd. amounting to ₹60,00,000/- and from M/s Shresth Builders (P) ltd. amounting to ₹1,11,63,213/-. However, while passing the order the ld. AO made additions in respect of certain loans from some

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

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 12.1. During the year, the assessee took unsecured loans from two parties namely; Hopewell Dealcom Pvt. ltd. amounting to ₹60,00,000/- and from M/s Shresth Builders (P) ltd. amounting to ₹1,11,63,213/-. However, while passing the order the ld. AO made additions in respect of certain loans from some

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

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 12.1. During the year, the assessee took unsecured loans from two parties namely; Hopewell Dealcom Pvt. ltd. amounting to ₹60,00,000/- and from M/s Shresth Builders (P) ltd. amounting to ₹1,11,63,213/-. However, while passing the order the ld. AO made additions in respect of certain loans from some

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

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 12.1. During the year, the assessee took unsecured loans from two parties namely; Hopewell Dealcom Pvt. ltd. amounting to ₹60,00,000/- and from M/s Shresth Builders (P) ltd. amounting to ₹1,11,63,213/-. However, while passing the order the ld. AO made additions in respect of certain loans from some

BMW INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

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

u/s 68 of the Act is reduced\nfrom the total income then there was no difference between the\nreturned income and assessed income and the tax sought to be\nevaded would be nil. Thus, the penalty is not leviable under section\n271(1)(c) of the Act by virtue of Explanation 4 to Section 271(1)(c) of\nthe

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

unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee Hilton Commodities Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 2009-10 and added to its income. Since I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income/ penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) are being initiated separately. The facts of Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd. (supra) fall in the former

BALAJI METAL AND SPONGE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 5(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

cash hook and she was not in a position to pinpoint accurately the sources and nature of the deposits further to buy peace with the Department filed letter dated 22.11.2011 offering voluntarily the entire deposits for taxation and paid tax liability of Rs. 15,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment as unexplained investments and passed order u/s

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AXIS OVERSEAS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc 1(1), Kolkata Axis Overseas Limited Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, 21A, Shakespeare Sarani, Vs. 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700107, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagca7497L Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri P.N. Barnwal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.12.2025

unexplained cash credit was to be deleted [2022] 140 taxmann.com 308 (Amritsar - Trib.) IN THE ITAT AMRITSAR BENCH Greensaphire Infratech (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer Whether amendment in section68 by Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 1-4-2013 is prospective in nature and thus applicable from assessment year 2013-14 - Held, yes - Assessee-company during year increased

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR vs. DEBEANJANA HARD COKE PRIVATE LIMITED, HETEDOBA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: the appellate proceedings or in the course of appellate proceedings.”

unexplained cash credit in respect of application of money, addition of Rs. 1,68,648/- on account of disallowance of excess depreciation and addition of Rs. 45,956/- on account of disallowance u/s. 10 r.w.s. 36(1)(v) of the Act. At the outset, the appellant claims that the AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271

BALHANUMAN COMMODEAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(4), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13

unexplained cash credit in the books of the assessee as per the provisions of section 68 of 1.T. Act. 4 Balhanuman Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. : AY: 2012-13 Whenever a sum is credited in the books of the assessee, the onus lies on the assessee to prove three criteria: (i) Identity of the creditors, (ii) Creditworthiness of the creditors

PRIMEROSE TRADERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the IT Act, 1961. In this case, the AO made addition of Rs. 97,00,000/- in respect of sale proceeds of equity shares to Oasis Complex Private Limited. The AO made this addition out of misconception and non-application of mind. In this case, the AO had issued two show-cause notices

SWETA CHIRIMAR,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 29(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm &Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am]

unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act in the assessment framed by the AO. The AO levied penalty on the said addition made u/s. 68 of the Act of Rs.7,24,641/- on the ground that assessee has concealed the particulars of income and thereby levied penalty @ 100% of the tax sought to be evaded 2 Sweta Chirimar