M/S METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-12(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 133(6) of the Act. tion 133(6) of the Act. (vii) We note from a perusal of the paper book (vii) We note from a perusal of the paper book-2, pages 185 to 206 the 2, pages 185 to 206 the details of share applicant details of share applicant M/s. Flowtop Agency

M/S BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-10(4), KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 133(6) of the Act. tion 133(6) of the Act. (vii) We note from a perusal of the paper book (vii) We note from a perusal of the paper book-2, pages 185 to 206 the 2, pages 185 to 206 the details of share applicant details of share applicant M/s. Flowtop Agency

MAITHAN CERAMIC LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 7(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Section 133(6) by DCIT, Circle\n7(1), Kolkata during the reassessment proceedings for A.Y. 2010-\n11.\nIn contrast, the assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S DOTEX MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objections are also dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

133(6) with regards to the genuineness of the share capital raised during the year, completed the assessment u/s 147/143(3) on 30.03.2012 assessing total income at Rs.42,449/-. Thereafter on 09.02.2015 the AO issued another notice u/s 148, which was served on the assessee on 19.02.2015. On assessee’s request, reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were furnished

NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 13. That the appellant craves to leave, add, amend or 13 adduce any of the grounds of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings.” A. We shall first take up ITA No. 179/KOL/2025 for AY 2011-12 for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company was engaged

NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 13. That the appellant craves to leave, add, amend or 13 adduce any of the grounds of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings.” A. We shall first take up ITA No. 179/KOL/2025 for AY 2011-12 for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company was engaged

ANCHITA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-12(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 637/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-12(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 & I.T.A. No. 1067/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Pcit, Kolkata-2, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

section 133(6) were issued after approval of the ld. PCIT-4, Kolkata. The ld. Assessing Officer has recorded the reasons on the basis of information available qua four parties, whose details were called for in the show-cause notice dated 20.02.2020. He has recorded the reasons and got approval from the Higher Authority for reopening of the assessment. This

ANCHITA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. P.C.I.T., KOLKATA - 2, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 637/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-12(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 & I.T.A. No. 1067/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Pcit, Kolkata-2, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

section 133(6) were issued after approval of the ld. PCIT-4, Kolkata. The ld. Assessing Officer has recorded the reasons on the basis of information available qua four parties, whose details were called for in the show-cause notice dated 20.02.2020. He has recorded the reasons and got approval from the Higher Authority for reopening of the assessment. This

ANUPAMA VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 10(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2015-16 Anupama Vintrade Pvt. Ltd..….……………………….……….……….……Appellant 77, 4Th Floor, Room 422, Elliot Road, Kol-700016.. [Pan: Aahca5675R] Vs. Ito, Ward-10(2), Kolkata….……………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 27, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.03.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee With A Delay Of 14 Days. 2. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of The Delay. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

133(6) along with questionnaire were issued to the assessee but the assessee did not furnish any information rather he submits submission in response to the show-cause notice. The Assessing Officer after considering the submission made by the assessee added an amount of Rs.55,00,000/- to the total income of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the said order

NEXTGEN VYAPAAR ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 133(6) of the Act. section 133(6) of the Act. (v) We note from a perusal of the paper book (v) We note from a perusal of the paper book-2, pages 138 to 159 the 2, pages 138 to 159 the details of share applicant details of share applicant M/s. Shivarshi Construction Pvt. Ltd M/s. Shivarshi Construction

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. ALEMBIC MERCHANTS PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue fails

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Central Cir-1(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Alembic Merchants Pvt. Ltd Pan: Aacca 0918Q Appellant Respondent

reassessment proceedings. 8. The first aspect which needs to be examined is as to whether the assessee is entitled to challenge the validity of initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the Act in the present appeals in which he has challenged the validity of order passed u/s 263 of the Act. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted before

ITO, WD.9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S MAHARAJ VINCOM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata……………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…..…..... Respondent 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] C.O. No.6/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…....... Cross-Objector 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] Vs Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata …………..….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 07, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: This Appeal By The Revenue & Corresponding Cross-Objection By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 08.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

section 147 in the vain attempt to enlarge the time available for framing the assessment. This is not permissible in law.” 3. In view of the above settled law and the facts of the case the notice u/s 148 of the Act and the assessment order should be quashed. 7.1. The ld. DR has not pointed out any contrary case

GARUD CREDIT & HOLDING PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 9(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 1270/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Garud Credit & Holding Pvt. Limited,.........Appellant D.J. Shah & Co., 2, Elgin Road, Kolkata-700020 [Pan: Aaacg9791P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-9(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Veekaas S. Sharma, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 06, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 01, 2023 O R D E R

reassessment proceedings, ld. Assessing Officer has called for complete details of the share capital and share premium of Rs.14,69,50,000/- to which the assessee has filed all relevant details, which were further utilized by the ld. Assessing Officer for the purpose of issuing notice under section 133

PANACHE DEALTRADE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. P.C.I.T., CENTRAL - 2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 977/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Panache Dealtrade Pvt. Limited,…….………Appellant 1St Floor, Rup Chand Roy Street, Kolkata-700007, West Bengal [Pan:Aagcp0699B] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Kolkata-2,………………………………..………Respondent Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700107 Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Mita Rizvi, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit(D.R.), 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

133(6) of the Act. Thus ld. A.R. 6 Panache Dealtrade Pvt. Limited argued that the issue was duly and fully examined by the ld. Assessing Officer before issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. Ld. A.R. further submitted that before recording the reasons all the transactions were verified and therefore were not part of the reasons recorded under

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

133(6). The AO concluded that in the absence of these critical details, the addition of Rs.81,50,000/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 remained justified and legally sustainable. On examination, it is observed that the AO had acted strictly in accordance with the provisions of law. The AO was correct in treating the receipts as unexplained cash

SRIRAM TIE UP PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-9(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 1104/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Sriram Tie Up Pvt. Ltd...................................…………………………........................Appellant 147, Nilgunge Road, Belghoria, Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aamcs 6826 K] Ito, Wd 9(4)..…………………………………………………………..........................................Respondent P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069 Appearances By: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 14, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 21, 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 3, Kolkata Dated 10.03.2016 & The Solitary Issue Raised Therein Relates To The Addition Of Rs. 9,86,00,000/- Made By The A.O. & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) Under Section 68 By Treating The Share Capital Subscription As Unexplained Cash Credits.

133(6). 6. In the case of M/s. Sukanya Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO (ITA 291/Kol/2016 dated 15.12.2017) cited by the learned counsel for the assessee, a similar view has been taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal and the similar issue relating to the addition made under section 68 on account of share capital contribution by treating

ITO, WARD-6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAGHUVIR RETAILERS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. No. 1129/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Income Tax Officer,………………..……………..Appellant Ward-6(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, 6Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 -Vs.- Raghuvir Retailers Pvt. Limited,.……….....Respondent Mandawa Shikhar, 151, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata-700026 [Pan:Aaecr8231M] Appearances By: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri Abhisek Bansal, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee

Section 148 notice or in reassessment. He could not point out such difference. It has further come on record that assessee had also received acknowledgement of his return from department’s end forming part of the paper book. We quote hon’ble jurisdictional high court in Special Civil Application No.15475/2015 Manish Kumar Pravinbhai Kiri vs. ACIT decided on 11.01.2016 holding

SEN FERRO ALLOYS (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

133(6) was issued to said loan\ngivers which were duly responded by them, therefore, identity of parties\ncould not be disputed It was also noticed that assessee was not\nbeneficiary as loan was repaid by assessee in subsequent year - Whether,\non facts, identity and creditworthiness of parties and genuineness of loan\ntransactions were well established, therefore, impugned addition made