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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

20,00,000/- Page 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

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

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

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

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)

20,000 9,80,000 10,00,000 Ltd. Roy Road, PAN AAHCMR128P Kolkata-7000001 10. Devkripa Agency Pvt. 3, Amartolla Street, 3,000 30,000 14,70,000 15,00,000 Ltd. 1st Floor, PAN: AAECD0988P Kolkata-700 001 11. Navtech Agency Pvt. 3, Amartolla Street, 3,000 30,000 14,70,000 15,00,000 Ltd. 1st Floor

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

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

20,00,000/- of premium is being added as unexplained credit in the books of the assessee company and added to the total income u/s 65 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In view of the above the total income of the assessee is computed as below. Returned income Rs. 4,60,071/- Add.: As discussed above u/s 68

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

20 M/s. Modern Malleables Limited, AY: 2013-14 the assessee. We note that AO had relied upon the statement recorded by him of Shri Sushil Kumar Bhatter on 16-03-2016, wherein he (Shri Bhatter) has made certain statements, which goes on to show that he was not aware of the JV agreement or about amount of transaction

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

20,76,538/- was not realized from Sundry Debtors during the year, thus resulting in short fall of working capital. 4. That the lower authorities failed to appreciate the fact that no addition is warranted u/s 68 of the Act w.r.t trade credits. 5. That, the appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify, substitute, add to, abridge and/or rescind

WINSHER COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 14(2), PRESENTLY D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATAKOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 668/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Winsher Commercial Pvt. Limited,…....….Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan:Aaacw3125H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………………Respondent Ward-14(2), Kolkata, [Presently Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata], Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 21, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 13, 2024 O R D E R

section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 5. Dissatisfied with the assessment order, the assessee carried the matter in appeal. The assessee has filed detailed written submissions, which have been reproduced by the ld. CIT(Appeals) from pages no. 2 to 20 of the impugned order. The ld. CIT(Appeals) thereafter recorded the findings on pages

ANKUR DEALCOM PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, KOLKATA - 2,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ankur Dealcom Private Limited Pcit, Room No. 302 & 303, Sikkim Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Commerce House, 4/1, Middleton Chowringhee Square, Vs. Street, Kolkata-700071, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahca2847F Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ruchika Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.07.2025

68 of the Act in the impugned assessment order and accordingly, directed the ld. AO to modify the assessment by making the addition of ₹10,38,102/-, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 04. The ld. AR vehemently submitted before us that in the original assessment preceding notice u/s 143(2) dated 28.06.2022 was issued , which

ABC INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Abc India Limited Dcit, Circle 11(1) 40/8, Ballygunj, Circular Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Chowringhee Kolkata, West Bengal-700019 Square, Kolkata-700069 Vs. West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacca2035J Assessee By : Shri S.K. Pransukhka, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.04.2026

68,48,232/- in respect of Jagi Road Land. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the action of treating gross rent of Rs 33,98,834/- as income of current year whereas rent was taxed in proceeding year on accrual basis. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the action of AD of disallowing dub membership

M/S. ARUP KUMAR CHAKRABORTY,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 22(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

20,000/- in cash and Rs. 1101075.00 in cheque from MTSD. The assessee claimed that the receipt is the sale of shares and submitted the cash book in support of the transactions. However the AO ITA No.937 & 631/Kol/2010 A.Y. 2005-06 Sh. Arup Kr. Chakraborty v. ITO Wd-22(2) Kol. Page 7 treated the above receipts as unexplained cash

ITO, WARD - 22(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI ARUP KUMAR CHAKRABORTY, HOWRAH

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

20,000/- in cash and Rs. 1101075.00 in cheque from MTSD. The assessee claimed that the receipt is the sale of shares and submitted the cash book in support of the transactions. However the AO ITA No.937 & 631/Kol/2010 A.Y. 2005-06 Sh. Arup Kr. Chakraborty v. ITO Wd-22(2) Kol. Page 7 treated the above receipts as unexplained cash

M/S VENKATESWAR MEDICARE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

119 of the Act that in case of non-corporate assessee where the income is declared up to Rs. 15 Lacs, the assessment would be framed by ITO and above Rs. 15 Lacs AC/DCs whereas the said limit was set at Rs. 20 Lacs and above Rs. 20 Lacs ITO/ and AC/DCs respectively. The Ld. A.R. submitted that since

M/S VENKATESWAR MEDICARE PVT. LTD.,ITO, WARD-2(1) vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

119 of the Act that in case of non-corporate assessee where the income is declared up to Rs. 15 Lacs, the assessment would be framed by ITO and above Rs. 15 Lacs AC/DCs whereas the said limit was set at Rs. 20 Lacs and above Rs. 20 Lacs ITO/ and AC/DCs respectively. The Ld. A.R. submitted that since