K.A.WIRES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-8(3), KOLKATA

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2012-13 K.A. Wires Ltd...………………………………………………………..................................……………..….......Appellant Chatterjee Intl Centre 11Th Floor Room No. 11 33A, Chowringhee Road Kolkata – 700 071 [Pan : Aadck 7401 M] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 8(3), Kolkata…..…................................................….…….....…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Adovate & Shri N.P. Jain, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri A.K. Nayak, Cit D/R & Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, Jcit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 4Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 22Nd, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld.Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 23/04/2019, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Is A Company & Is Engaged In The Business Of Zinc Manufacturing. It Filed Its Return Of Income Electronically For The Assessment Year 2012-13 On 07/09/2012 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.(-)Rs.37,99,257/-. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 30/03/2015 Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.1,02,00,743/- Interalia Making An Addition U/S 68 Of The Act Being Share Capital & Share Premium Received By The Company From Three (3) Associate Companies. Out Of This Rs,1,40,00,000/- Addition, The Assessing Officer States That A Protective Addition Of Rs.40,00,000/- Is Made In The Hands Of The Intermediary Companies. Aggrieved The Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal Without Success. The Ld. First Appellate Authority, Upheld The Order Of The Assessing Officer. 3. Further Aggrieved, The Assessee Is Before Us.

68 of the Act, the Bench has been consistently remanding , the Bench has been consistently remanding such matters back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, in accordance back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, in accordance back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, in accordance with

BENI PRASAD LAHOTI,HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

68,765/- section 139 Returned income under Rs. 8,76,720/- section 153A Income disclosed under Rs. 7,50,000/- section 132(4) Addition under section Rs. 1

BENI PRASAD LAHOTI,HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

68,765/- section 139 Returned income under Rs. 8,76,720/- section 153A Income disclosed under Rs. 7,50,000/- section 132(4) Addition under section Rs. 1

ARISTOCRAT RESIDENCES LLP ,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 34 (1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Income Tax Officer, Ward Aristocrat Residences Llp 34(1) 2 Oswal Chambers Church Lane Aaykar Bhavan, Bbd Bagh, Kolkata-700001 Vs. Kolkata-700107 West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aavfa9997R Assessee By : Dr. Kapil Goel, Ar Revenue By : H. Robindro Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.04.2025

1) of the Act along with questionnaire on various occasions and on few occasions, there was no compliance, however the assessee filed the details/ evidences as called for by the ld. Assessing Officer. The ld. AO noted that the assessee has received unsecured loans from Funidea Promoters Limited of ₹1.00 Cr during the year. Finally, the ld. AO treated

ACITCC-3(2), KOLKATA vs. SMT. SAVITRI DEVI AGARWAL, BILASPUR

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

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

68] NOTE-1: UNDER SECTION 271AAA NO PENALTY WAS TO BE IMPOSED ON INCOME ADMITTED U/S 132(4). HOWEVER, PENALTY U/S 271 AAB IS LEVIABLE EVEN IF INCOME IS ADMITTED U/S 132(4) AND SUCH PENALTY IS TO BE LEVIED ON THE AMOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME ADMITTED U/S 132(4).THEREFORE, PENALTY UNDER NEWLY SUBSTITUTED SECTION 271AAB SHOULD

ACIT CC-3(2) , KOLKATA vs. SMT. KALAWATI DEVI AGARWAL, BILASPUR

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

68] NOTE-1: UNDER SECTION 271AAA NO PENALTY WAS TO BE IMPOSED ON INCOME ADMITTED U/S 132(4). HOWEVER, PENALTY U/S 271 AAB IS LEVIABLE EVEN IF INCOME IS ADMITTED U/S 132(4) AND SUCH PENALTY IS TO BE LEVIED ON THE AMOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME ADMITTED U/S 132(4).THEREFORE, PENALTY UNDER NEWLY SUBSTITUTED SECTION 271AAB SHOULD

ACIT CC-3(2),, KOLKATA vs. SRI ARJUN LAL AGARWAL , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

68] NOTE-1: UNDER SECTION 271AAA NO PENALTY WAS TO BE IMPOSED ON INCOME ADMITTED U/S 132(4). HOWEVER, PENALTY U/S 271 AAB IS LEVIABLE EVEN IF INCOME IS ADMITTED U/S 132(4) AND SUCH PENALTY IS TO BE LEVIED ON THE AMOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME ADMITTED U/S 132(4).THEREFORE, PENALTY UNDER NEWLY SUBSTITUTED SECTION 271AAB SHOULD

DCIT, CC-3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMICUS REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

1,81,50,000/-, I find that the AO has admitted paragraph 6 on page 3 of his order that as per books of the appellant, he had raised ne said amounts as share capital/premium in that year. This fact has been reiterated by the appellant in his reply to the showcause issued by the AO, in this regard

BMW INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

sections": [ "271(1)(c)", "68", "36(1)(va)", "40A(7)", "133(6)", "132(1)", "147", "139" ], "issues": "Whether penalty

R A REALTORS PVT. LTD.,HOWRAH vs. I.T.O., WARD - 13(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but the appeal of the assessee was dismissed without considering the additional ground being legal ground taken by the assessee. 6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the assessee preferred appeal by taking the above legal ground that the concerned Assessing Officer passing

SHRI RAGHVENDRA MOHTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax {Appeals}-10, Kolkata, erred in confirming the Addition of Rs.148657/- made on account of Bogus Commission. 4. That the ld. ClT{A}-10, Kolkata, erred in confirming to the extent of Rs.1626558/- made

BMW INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

132(1) of the Act was conducted on 28.04.2022 on the group. The assessee filed the return of income u/s 148 of the Act declaring total income at ₹3,91,45,340/-. The assessment was completed at ₹4,24,79,134/- as under:-\nParticulars\nIncome as per ITR dated 18.02.2023\nLess: Bogus Sales\nAdd: Unexplained cash credit u/s 68

BMW INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

132(1) of the Act was conducted on\n28.04.2022 on the group. The assessee filed the return of income u/s\n148 of the Act declaring total income at ₹3,91,45,340/-. The\nassessment was completed at ₹4,24,79,134/- as under:-\nParticulars\nIncome as per ITR dated 18.02.2023\nLess: Bogus Sales\nAdd: Unexplained cash credit u/s 68

M/S EVERSAFE SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-5(3), KOLKATA

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

68 of the Act. The assessee carried the matter in appeal. The first appellate authority passed an ex-parte order and confirmed the order of the AO. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 2 I.T.A. No. 604/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Eversafe Securities Pvt. Ltd. 4. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUMANGAL DEALMARK PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

68 of the Act. The addition for the year under consideration in the case of assessee was made of Rs.15,90,00,000/-. 7. Being aggrieved by the said order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), however, CO No.18/Kol/2024 deleted the addition so made by the AO, observing that

DCIT,CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUMANGAL DEALMARK PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

68 of the Act. The addition for the year under consideration in the case of assessee was made of Rs.15,90,00,000/-. 7. Being aggrieved by the said order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), however, CO No.18/Kol/2024 deleted the addition so made by the AO, observing that

DCIT,CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. DISHA REALCON PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

68 of the Act. The addition for the year under consideration in the case of assessee was made of Rs.15,90,00,000/-. 7. Being aggrieved by the said order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), however, CO No.18/Kol/2024 deleted the addition so made by the AO, observing that

DCIT,CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUMANGAL DEALMARK PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

68 of the Act. The addition for the year under consideration in the case of assessee was made of Rs.15,90,00,000/-. 7. Being aggrieved by the said order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), however, CO No.18/Kol/2024 deleted the addition so made by the AO, observing that

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA vs. PRAFUL ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

68 of the Act. The addition for the year under consideration in the case of assessee was made of Rs.15,90,00,000/-. 7. Being aggrieved by the said order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), however, CO No.18/Kol/2024 deleted the addition so made by the AO, observing that