DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. SDR MEGHNATH INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

119 Page 116 on 22.07.2011 The appellant during appeal, has furnished the Balance Sheet, Bank Statement and ITR of the source of source, even though, since the amendment to section 68

UNIWORTH LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

68,37,447/-. Later on, the assessing officer noticed that there was reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. As per assessing officer there were two reasons for reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act. These two reasons for reopening are as follows: (i).Non-accounting of interest income on loan amounting to Rs.228.38 lakhs

UNIWORTH LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

68,37,447/-. Later on, the assessing officer noticed that there was reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. As per assessing officer there were two reasons for reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act. These two reasons for reopening are as follows: (i).Non-accounting of interest income on loan amounting to Rs.228.38 lakhs

UNIWORTH LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

68,37,447/-. Later on, the assessing officer noticed that there was reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. As per assessing officer there were two reasons for reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act. These two reasons for reopening are as follows: (i).Non-accounting of interest income on loan amounting to Rs.228.38 lakhs

NAVANSH VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 involving proceeding under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and suspicious transaction in shares cannot be exempted under section 10(38) of the Act? ( Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed substantial error in law in b deleting the addition of undisclosed income ignoring the larger scam of ) organized

M/S INTENT DEALERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-10(2), KOLKATA

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

119 of PB) 8 Intent Dealers Pvt. Ltd., AY- 2012-13 Kavya Suppliers P. Ltd. Page 129 of paper book Rs.51.90 crores (page 142 of PB) Reflect Commodeal P. Ltd. Page 157 of paper book Rs.51.80 crores (page 167 of PB) Remix Vanijya P. Ltd. Page 178 of paper book Rs.56.15 crores (page 192 of PB) Sangini Agencies

D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. WISE INVESTMENT PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 163/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 D.C.I.T. Central Circle – 1(4), Kolkata M/S. Wise Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs 3Rd Floor 5, Govind Chand Dhar Lane Kolkata - 700001 [Pan: Aaacw3141R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/11/2023 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 Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeals -21, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 26/12/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit (A) Is Justified In Deleting Addition Made U/S. 68 Of Rs.32,50,00,000/- Ignoring The Remand Report Dated 20.07.2022 Wherein The Report Categorically Stated That The Share Applicant Company Has No Creditworthiness To Invest In The Assesses Company. 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit (A) Was Erroneous As It Had Not Taken Cognizance Of The Fact That The 2

119 (Del.)  CIT vs. Lovely Exports Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC)  CIT vs. Dolfin Canpack Ltd. 283 ITR 190 (Delhi)  DCIT vs. Rohini Builders (127 Taxman 523)  Sri Barkha Synthetics Ltd. vs. CIT 283 ITR 377 (Raj.)  CIT vs. Down Town Hospitals Ltd. 267 ITR 439 (Gau)  Sophia Finance Ltd. 205 ITR 98 (Delhi) Full Bench  ITO vs. Neelkanth

SHANKAR TRADERS & DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 199/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shankar Traders & Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Distributors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Aaykar Bhawan, A-Block, 1St Floor, Mercantile P-7, Chowringhee Square, Building, 9, Lal Bazar Street, Kolkata-700, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, [Pan: Aadcs8907L] West Bengal अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent)

Section 68 of the Act.” 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, thus, has held that once the assessee has submitted the documents relating to identity, genuineness of the transaction, and credit-worthiness of the subscribers, then the AO is duty bound conduct to conduct an independent enquiry to verify the same. However, as noted above, the Assessing Officer

M/S. VASUPUJYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

section 68 by treating the share premium amount as unexplained cash credit was challenged by the assessee in the appeal filed before the ld. CIT(Appeals). During the course of appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(Appeals), the following submissions in writing were made on behalf of the assessee in support of its case on this issue:- “During

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

119 (Bom HC):\n\"The Bombay High Court quashed reopening where the AO did not\nallege any failure to disclose material facts.\"\n(iv) CIT v. Orient Craft Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 536 (Del HC):\nThe Delhi High Court held:\n\"There is no whisper in the reasons recorded, of any tangible\nmaterial which came to the possession

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

M/S MODERN MALLEABLES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 68 of the Act is attracted. We note that JV Agreement is between M/s. NCPL and assessee and the terms and conditions of the JV has been stated in the JV agreement found placed at page 1 to 21 of the paper book. From a perusal of the said agreement there is no clause which stipulated that

SHRI MAHESH KUMAR SUREKA,HOWRAH vs. PCIT-13, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.106/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Mahesh Kumar Sureka..…………………................................……Appellant 6/2/1, Ashutosh Mukherjee Lane, Howrah-711106. [Pan: Alcps8735K] Vs. Pcit-13, Kolkata......................…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 28, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 29, 2022 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.01.2021 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-13, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Pcit’] Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Has Contested The Validity Of The Revision Order Passed By The Ld. Pcit U/S 263 Of The Act Not Only On Merits But Also, Inter Alia, On The Ground That The Aforesaid Order Was Null & Void As No Document Identification Number (Din) Has Been Mentioned In The Body Of The Impugned Order Which Was In Violation Of Circular No.19 Of 2019 Of Cbdt. Since The Aforesaid Legal Issue Will Be Determinative Of The Very Validity Of The Impugned Revision Order

68-69, is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: Circular No.19/2019 I.T.A No.106/Kol/2021 Assessment year: 2012-13 Shri Mahesh Kumar Sureka Government of lndia Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Direct Taxes New Delhi, dated the 14th August, 2019 Subject: Generation/Allotment/Quoting of Document Identification Number in Notice/Order/Summons/letter/correspondence issued by the Income-tax Department – reg. With the launch

COSTAL ENERGY (P) LTD,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-15(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.348/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Costal Energy (P) Ltd......................................................………...…..…Appellant Ganesh Complex, Nh-6 Bombay Road, Raghudevpur, Howrah- 711322. [Pan: Aaccc7578A] Vs. Ito, Ward-15(1), Kolkata..................................................…....…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 24, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 23, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.02.2020 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-5, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Pcit’] Agitating The Action Of The Pcit In Passing The Impugned Order U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction. 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

68-69, is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: Circular No.19/2019 Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Direct Taxes New Delhi, dated the 14th August, 2019 Subject: Generation/Allotment/Quoting of Document Identification Number in Notice/Order/Summons/letter/correspondence issued by the Income-tax Department – reg. I.T.A No.348/Kol/2021 Assessment year: 2010-11 Costal Energy (P) Ltd With the launch

RCC INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS) , KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.108/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Rcc Institute Of Technology..…………………................................……Appellant C.I.T Cambus(Old), Cannel South Road, Beliaghata, Kolkata-700015. [Pan: Aaaar4012N] Vs. Cit(Exemption), Kolkata............…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 28, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 29, 2022 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(Exemption’)] Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Has Contested The Validity Of The Revision Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(Exemption) U/S 263 Of The Act Not Only On Merits But Also, Inter Alia, On The Ground That The Aforesaid Order Was Null & Void As No Document Identification Number (Din) Has Been Mentioned In The Body Of The Impugned Order Which Was In Violation Of Circular No.19 Of 2019 Of Cbdt. Since The Aforesaid Legal Issue Will Be Determinative Of The Very Validity Of The Impugned Revision Order Passed

68-69, is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: I.T.A No.108/Kol/2022 Assessment year: 2016-17 RCC Institute of Technology Circular No.19/2019 Government of lndia Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Direct Taxes New Delhi, dated the 14th August, 2019 Subject: Generation/Allotment/Quoting of Document Identification Number in Notice/Order/Summons/letter/correspondence issued by the Income-tax Department – reg. With the launch

SMT. SUNITA AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-43(6), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.432/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Sunita Agarwal………………………………................................……Appellant C/O Rajesh Mohan & Associates, Unit No.18, 5Th Floor, Bagati House, 34, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkata-700013. [Pan: Adcpa9325P] Vs. Ito, Ward-43(6), Kolkata............…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Amal Sudhir Kamat, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 29, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 22, 2022 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.06.2020 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-15, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Pcit’) Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Has Contested The Validity Of The Revision Order Passed By The Ld. Pcit U/S 263 Of The Act Not Only On Merits But Also, Inter Alia, On The Ground That The Aforesaid Order Was Null & Void As No Document Identification Number (Din) Has Been Mentioned In The Body Of The Impugned Order Which Was In Violation Of Circular No.19 Of

68-69, is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: Circular No.19/2019 I.T.A No.432/Kol/2020 Assessment year: 2015-16 Smt. Sunita Agarwal Government of lndia Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Direct Taxes New Delhi, dated the 14th August, 2019 Subject: Generation/Allotment/Quoting of Document Identification Number in Notice/Order/Summons/letter/correspondence issued by the Income-tax Department – reg. With the launch of various

TATA MEDICAL CENTRE TRUST,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Tata Medical Centre Trust Commissioner Of Income- Plot No. Dh 7 Dh 8, 14 Tax, (Exemption), Major Arterial Road (Ew) Vs. Kolkata. Action Area I, West Bengal-700156 (Pan: Aabtt2222Q) (Appellant) (Respondent)

68-69, is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: Circular No. 19 /2019 Government of lndia Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Direct Taxes New Delhi, dated the 14th August, 2019 Subject: Generation/Allotment/Quoting of Document Identification Number in Notice/Order/Summons/letter/correspondence issued by the Income-tax Department – reg. With the launch of various e-governance initiatives, Income-tax Department

BIRENDRANATH SAMANTA,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIR-2, BURDWAN, BURDWAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 227/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Birendra Nath Samanta Assistant Commissioner Of Anandapally, Sripally Vs Income Tax, Cirlce-2, Burdwan Burdwan - 713103 [Pan : Akaps8240C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 12/05/2022 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 253 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. In The Condonation Application, The Assessee Stated That An Affidavit & An Application Has Been Filed Wherein It Has Been Submitted That The Impugned Order Was Passed On 12/05/2022 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Ex-Parte. The Said Appellate Order Was Sent Through E- Mail At Debudan1975@Gmail.Com, Which Belonged To Shri Debabrata Dan, A Resident Of Burdwan & Looking After The Income Tax Matters

Section 41 of the Act for applying I.T.A. No. 227/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Birendra Nath Samanta 9 provisions pertaining to remissions or cessation of trading liability but that too cannot stand as the assessee has not written off the liability in the books and the sundry creditors have been paid in subsequent year and sufficient evidence has been