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)

68 towards bogus share capital to the tune of Rs.1,81,50,000/- and unsecured loans to the tune of Rs.1,92,00,000/- therefore cannot be sustained and are deleted. The grounds raised by the appellant are allowed.” 7 I.T.A. No. 803/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Amicus Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. 6. Now, going through the above finding

AERO DEALCOMM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-4(3), KOLKATA

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble) Assessment Years: 2009-10 Aereo Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd………….………...........................................................……………….…......Appellant C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates 2, Garstin Place 2Nd Floor Suite No. 203 Off Hare Street Kolkata West Bengal – 700 001 [Pan : Aacca 5934 G] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Kolkata…………………..……………….............….……....…....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate & Shri M. Jhawar, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 26Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

68, read with section , read with section 147, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Accommodation entry) (Accommodation entry) - Assessment year 2008-09 - Information was received from Information was received from 6 Assessment Years: 2009-10 Aereo Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd. investigation wing that assessee investigation wing that assessee-company was a beneficiary of accommodation

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. SAMRIDDHI METALS 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

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. SAMRIDDHI METALS 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. SAMRIDDHI METALS 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. SAMRIDDHI METALS 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. SAMRIDDHI METALS 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

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SOUTHWINDS PROJECT LLP, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened by the AO in exercise of powers under Sections 147/148 of the Act, subject to fulfilment of the conditions as envisaged/mentioned under sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved.”\n\n5.3 As mentioned above, no incriminating documents have been found during search

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. DHANSAR ENGINEERING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

68 of the Act. Further search and seizure operation was conducted u/s 132 of the Act on 13.01.2016 and consequent to search operation, notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued on 18.05.2017. On perusal of the facts of the case, there is no denying to this fact that assessment for the AY 2010-11 is not pending

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAJA SHELTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1173 & 1175/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2013-14 Dcit, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata.……………………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Raja Shelters Pvt. Ltd…………………….…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent 25A, S. P. Mukherjee Road, Kol- 700025. [Pan: Aadcr5073Q] Appearances By: Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 18, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue For The Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2013-14 Against Separate Orders Dated 21.02.2025 & 25.02.2025 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.

68 of the Act for unexplained cash credit. 5.2.2. Upon perusal of the submissions made in the course of appellate proceeding, it is observed that the appellant mainly contested on technical issue of the case and contended that the assessment year under consideration i.e. 2009-10 relates to year in which the assessment was not abated/completed, so, any disallowance/addition