M/S. BARDHAMAN DHARMARAJ PAPER MILL PVT. LTD.,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BURDWAN

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year : 2015-16

112 squarely applies in the case of the assessee. Respectfully following the above judgments, the order of the A.O. making an addition of Rs.3,25,00,000/- under section 68

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BURDWAN, BURDWAN vs. M/S. BARDHAMAN DHARMARAJ PAPER MILL PVT. LTD., BURDWAN

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year : 2015-16

112 squarely applies in the case of the assessee. Respectfully following the above judgments, the order of the A.O. making an addition of Rs.3,25,00,000/- under section 68

DEPUTY COMMISSOENR OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 68 of the Act. After the Assessing Officer puts the assessee on notice and the assessee submits the explanation with regard to the cash credit, the Assessing Officer should consider the same objectively before he takes a decision to accept or reject it. In Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 68 of the Act. After the Assessing Officer puts the assessee on notice and the assessee submits the explanation with regard to the cash credit, the Assessing Officer should consider the same objectively before he takes a decision to accept or reject it. In Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)- 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AUXINITE SUPPLIERS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Auxinite Suppliers Private Tax (Cc)-3(1) Limited 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan 44/2A Jain Tower, Hazra Road, Vs. Poorva, 110 Shantipally, Kolkata- Kolkata-700019, West Bengal 700017, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecb3974H Co No. 11/Kol/2025 (Arising In Ita No. 139/Kol/2025 For A.Y. 2019-20) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Auxinite Suppliers Private Tax (Cc)-3(1) Limited 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan 44/2A Jain Tower, Hazra Road, Vs. Poorva, 110 Shantipally, Kolkata- Kolkata-700019, West Bengal 700017, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri Rajeeva Kumar & Giridhar Dhelia, Ars Revenue By : Shri V. Vidhyadhar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.04.2026

68 of the Act, since said statement was retracted and there was no cash trail or any other corroborative evidence or investigation brought on record by AO, impugned additions were liable to be deleted. Even the Hon’ble A.P. High Court in the case of “Naresh Kumar Agarwal” (2015) 53 taxmann.com 306 (Andhra Pradesh) has observed that where

ITO,WARD-8(2),KOL, KOLKATA vs. M/S. INDUS REALTY PVT. LTD. , KOLKATA.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

section 68 of the Income-tax Act. Even after making elaborate exercise of examining the documents, the Ld. CIT(A) could not point out any rebuttal to the above evidences furnished by the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness of the share subscribers and genuineness of the transaction. The hon'ble Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court, in the case

ENKAY TRAFFIN (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 of the Act. Therefore, according to the First Ld. Pr. CIT, the first original assessment order framed u/s. 143(3) of the Act order framed u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 26-03-2015 was against the principle of 2015 was against the principle of 9 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Enkay Traffin (P) Ltd. natural justice and, therefore

DCIT, CC-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. P & P HIGHRISE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

section 68 is not sustainable. The assessee has drew the attention of the ld. CIT(Appeals) towards the material submitted by it. A paper book running into 202 pages containing the material filed before the authorities below has been filed before us. For making reference about the nature of material, we would deem it appropriate to take note

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

68 of the Act. As apparent, while making the addition, the AO has only failed to point out any defect in the details furnished by the assessee. Besides this, he even failed to bring any adverse material on records to justify his claim, that the said transaction is bogus in nature. Further, as per the details furnished by the appellant

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AVIMA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

Section 68 of the Act and we thus find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the authorities.” c) The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in ‘Sreelekha Banerjee V. CIT (1963) 49 ITR (SC) 112

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EVERNEWCOMMODEAL PVT. LTD. , KOLKATA

In the result, ITA No.1535/Kol/2025 of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1535 & 1536/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata.…………………………….…….……Appellant Vs. M/S Evernewcommodeal Pvt. Ltd..……………….………...……...…..…..Respondent 11, Pollock Street, Kol- 1. [Pan: Aabce9293P] Appearances By: Shri Altaf Hossain, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 10, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20 Against Separate Orders Both Dated 25.04.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Ita No.1535/Kol/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts. Ita No.1535/Kol/2025 - Brief Facts Of The Case Are That U/S 2. 139(1) Of The Act On 10-10-2019 Declaring A Total Income At Rs. 10,02,960/-. The Same Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Later, A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The Act Was Conducted At "Ladhuram Toshniwal Group" On 08-03-2022 As A Part Of "Jain Group" Of Concerns/ Persons At Various Places & Simultaneously, Business

Section 68 of the Act and we thus find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the authorities.” c) The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in ‘Sreelekha Banerjee V. CIT (1963) 49 ITR (SC) 112

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EVERNEWCOMMODEAL PVT. LTD. , KOLKATA

In the result, ITA No.1535/Kol/2025 of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1535 & 1536/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata.…………………………….…….……Appellant Vs. M/S Evernewcommodeal Pvt. Ltd..……………….………...……...…..…..Respondent 11, Pollock Street, Kol- 1. [Pan: Aabce9293P] Appearances By: Shri Altaf Hossain, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 10, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20 Against Separate Orders Both Dated 25.04.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Ita No.1535/Kol/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts. Ita No.1535/Kol/2025 - Brief Facts Of The Case Are That U/S 2. 139(1) Of The Act On 10-10-2019 Declaring A Total Income At Rs. 10,02,960/-. The Same Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Later, A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The Act Was Conducted At "Ladhuram Toshniwal Group" On 08-03-2022 As A Part Of "Jain Group" Of Concerns/ Persons At Various Places & Simultaneously, Business

Section 68 of the Act and we thus find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the authorities.” c) The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in ‘Sreelekha Banerjee V. CIT (1963) 49 ITR (SC) 112

ROHIT JALAN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 2205/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

68 of the Act. The AO further made addition of Rs.14,467/- for alleged commission @ .5% paid to obtain the alleged 2 Rohit Jalan, AY- 2013-14 bogus LTCG u/s. 69C of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the action of AO. Aggrieved, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 4. I have

DCIT, CC-2(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VIKRMA IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 68 of the Act. After the Assessing Officer puts the assessee on notice and the assessee submits the ITAT 18 OF 2022 explanation with regard to the cash credit, the Assessing Officer should consider the same objectively before he takes a decision to accept or reject it. In Srilekha Banerjee & Ors. Versus CIT 4, it was held that

DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), KOLKATA vs. VIKRMA IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 68 of the Act. After the Assessing Officer puts the assessee on notice and the assessee submits the ITAT 18 OF 2022 explanation with regard to the cash credit, the Assessing Officer should consider the same objectively before he takes a decision to accept or reject it. In Srilekha Banerjee & Ors. Versus CIT 4, it was held that

ACIT,CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TRAXPO ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: : Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

112 12. Sudarshan Chemicals 12,85,151 12,85,151 13. Vertex Chemicals Pvt. Ltd 4,44,827 4,44,827 14. Super Chemicals Pvt. Ltd 10,53,619 10,53,619 15. K P Enterprises 22,03,133 22,03,133 16. Sahastra Exports Pvt. Ltd 34,07,946 34,07,946 Total 2,93,67,494 The assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 68 of the Act. After the Assessing Officer puts the assessee on notice and the assessee submits the explanation with regard to the cash credit, the Assessing Officer should consider the same objectively before he takes a decision to accept or reject it. In Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLKATA vs. VENKATESH INTERNATIONAL EXIM PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy (Vice President)

112/- under section 68 of the Act. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals