BARIK BISWAS,BASIRHAT vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

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

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

section 40A(3) of the Act with regard to purchases. We note that the issue on which the reopening was made vis a vis the issue on which the revisionary order was passed were two different issues and therefore, the assessment framed u/s 143(3)/147 dated 25.03.2016 is not amenable to revision

BARIK BISWAS,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

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

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

section 40A(3) of the Act with regard to purchases. We note that the issue on which the reopening was made vis a vis the issue on which the revisionary order was passed were two different issues and therefore, the assessment framed u/s 143(3)/147 dated 25.03.2016 is not amenable to revision

BARIK BISWAS,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

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

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

section 40A(3) of the Act with regard to purchases. We note that the issue on which the reopening was made vis a vis the issue on which the revisionary order was passed were two different issues and therefore, the assessment framed u/s 143(3)/147 dated 25.03.2016 is not amenable to revision

BARIK BISWAS,BASIRHAT vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

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

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

section 40A(3) of the Act with regard to purchases. We note that the issue on which the reopening was made vis a vis the issue on which the revisionary order was passed were two different issues and therefore, the assessment framed u/s 143(3)/147 dated 25.03.2016 is not amenable to revision

BARIK BISWAS,BASIRHAT vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

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

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

section 40A(3) of the Act with regard to purchases. We note that the issue on which the reopening was made vis a vis the issue on which the revisionary order was passed were two different issues and therefore, the assessment framed u/s 143(3)/147 dated 25.03.2016 is not amenable to revision

BARIK BISWAS,BASIRHAT vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

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

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

section 40A(3) of the Act with regard to purchases. We note that the issue on which the reopening was made vis a vis the issue on which the revisionary order was passed were two different issues and therefore, the assessment framed u/s 143(3)/147 dated 25.03.2016 is not amenable to revision

ITO,WARD 1(1), ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. ABU ZOBAIR & KAZI SHARI AHMAD(NOW ASANSO-1 C.S.SHOP\U005CU00BF \U005CU00BF, ASANSOL

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.318/Kol/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07 Ito, Ward-1(1), Asansol Vs. Abu Zobair&Kazishafi Ahmad 6, Budhadanga Road, Asansol Lower Chelidanga, Asansol 713301. -4. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aakfa 6221 B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellantby : Shri Dulal Ch. Mandol,Jcit, Dr Respondent By :Shri Arvind Agarwal, Advocate सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25/08/2017 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/11/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue Pertaining To Assessment Year 2006-07, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Asansol, In Appeal No.107/Cit(A)/Asl/Ward-1(1)/Asl/14-15, Dated 05.12.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act,1961( Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 27.03.2014. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Justified By Holding That Cash Payment To M/S. Asansol Bottling & Packaging Co. Ltd., Asansol, Is Not A Violation Of Section 40A(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Justified By Holding That Cash Payment To A Business Organization, I.E. M/S Asansol Bottling & Packaging Co. Ltd., Asansol, Is Payment To Government For The Purpose Of Section 40A(3) Of The Lncome Tax Act, 1961. 3.Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Justified By Holding That Cash Payment To M/S. Asansol Bottling & Packaging Co. Ltd., Asansol, Is Exempted As Per Rule 6Dd(B) With Section 40A(3) When There Are No Rules To Specify That This Payment Was Required To Be Made In Cash Only.

section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.The AO observed that assessee firm had made purchases of country spirit amounting to Rs.1,93,98,138/- in cash from Asansol Bottling & Packaging Co. Pvt. Ltd. and each such instance exceeds Rs.20,000/-. The number of such instances of cash payment were 123 and same fact had been confirmed

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-1(2), JALPAIGURI vs. M/S. DILIP KUMAR DAS & SONS, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

reassessment making disallowance as noted above u/s 40(a)(ia) and section 40A(3) of the Act as well as addition

M/S. DILIP KUMAR DAS & SONS,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-I(1), JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

reassessment making disallowance as noted above u/s 40(a)(ia) and section 40A(3) of the Act as well as addition

M/S. DILIP KUMAR DAS & SONS,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-I(1), JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

reassessment making disallowance as noted above u/s 40(a)(ia) and section 40A(3) of the Act as well as addition

SUBODH CHANDRA DAS,HOOGHLY vs. I.T.O.,WARD-23(3), HOOGHLY

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble) Ita No. 2246 & 2247/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13

40A(3) of the I.T. Act,1961. Being an individual engaged in tyre business such large cash deposits and cash withdrawal do individual engaged in tyre business such large cash deposits and cash withdrawal do individual engaged in tyre business such large cash deposits and cash withdrawal do not appear to be genuine business transaction. As such, such cash deposits

SUBODH CHANDRA DAS,HOOGHLY vs. I.T.O.,WARD-23(3), HOOGHLY

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble) Ita No. 2246 & 2247/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13

40A(3) of the I.T. Act,1961. Being an individual engaged in tyre business such large cash deposits and cash withdrawal do individual engaged in tyre business such large cash deposits and cash withdrawal do individual engaged in tyre business such large cash deposits and cash withdrawal do not appear to be genuine business transaction. As such, such cash deposits

SAMIRUDDIN KHAN,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD 1(2), , BURDWAN

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 40A(3) at ₹ 2,11,244/- were also confirmed. The Bench was of the view that in the interest of justice and fair play, the request of the assessee to set aside I.T.A. No.: 1169/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Samiruddin Khan. the case before the Ld. AO may be allowed so that a proper opportunity of being heard

ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. CONTEMPORARY INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

reassessment proceedings was that it had been having all the relevant details, address, VAT, CST and bills of the concerned three parties followed by payments made to have done through account payee cheques. It further stated that the relevant payments had also been made through banking channels only. The Assessing Officer rejected all the said pleas in his assessment order

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR. VI, KOLKATA vs. M/S J.K. LAKSHMI CEMENT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s CO is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Partha Sarathi Chowdhury

40A(9) of the IT Act, 1961 and in that view deleted the disallowance of Rs.15,17,126/-. This ground of the revenue is, therefore, dismissed.” We also find that the case of AO is not excessive or unreasonable expenses. In our view the AO before disallowing the school running expenses should have considered the earlier expenses. More over from

EDUCO VENTURES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: the AO.

40A(3) and Section 40(a)(ia) does not attracts to it. Hence, no adverse view is taken on this and addition to the extent of Rs. 1,64,02,821/- on account of payment made to M/s. JMD Construction made u/s 69C of the Act is hereby Educo Ventures Pvt. Ltd. deleted. But, I find no merit

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EDUCO VENTURES PVT LTD, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: the AO.

40A(3) and Section 40(a)(ia) does not attracts to it. Hence, no adverse view is taken on this and addition to the extent of Rs. 1,64,02,821/- on account of payment made to M/s. JMD Construction made u/s 69C of the Act is hereby Educo Ventures Pvt. Ltd. deleted. But, I find no merit

EDUCO VENTURES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: the AO.

40A(3) and Section 40(a)(ia) does not attracts to it. Hence, no adverse view is taken on this and addition to the extent of Rs. 1,64,02,821/- on account of payment made to M/s. JMD Construction made u/s 69C of the Act is hereby Educo Ventures Pvt. Ltd. deleted. But, I find no merit