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

68 of the Act and added the same to the income of the assessee. 05. In the appellate proceedings, the appeal was dismissed on legal issue by the ld. CIT (A) by holding that the d AO has received information that assessee has received an unsecured loan of ₹1.00 Cr from the Aristocrat Residences LLP; A.Y. 2013-14 shell company

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

ITO, WARD-14(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PANSU COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1859/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

139(4) of the Act on 25.12.2012, declaring total loss to the tune of Rs.16,772/-. The assessee company was incorporated on 09.09.2011. During the year under consideration, as total of Rs. 2,17,00,000/- (Rs.1,43,200 + Rs.2,15,56,800) was credited in the books of accounts of the assessee company, consisting share capital at 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. 1,37,648/- 14A Assessed income Rs.10,14,368/- Penalty proceedings were initiated in respect of the additional income disclosed under section 132(4) of Rs.7

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. 1,37,648/- 14A Assessed income Rs.10,14,368/- Penalty proceedings were initiated in respect of the additional income disclosed under section 132(4) of Rs.7

JEWEL INDIA JEWELLERS,KOLKATQA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR. 4(4), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

139 of the Act rather the income was declared in the return filed under section 153A of the Act after the search. The assessee declared the income under section 132(4) of the Act and disclosed the same in the return of income filed under section 153A of the Act. The assessee explained the source of investment

JEWEL INDIA JEWELLERS ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR. 4(4), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

139 of the Act rather the income was declared in the return filed under section 153A of the Act after the search. The assessee declared the income under section 132(4) of the Act and disclosed the same in the return of income filed under section 153A of the Act. The assessee explained the source of investment

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-49(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S VISWAKARMA RESIDENCY, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. M.L.Meenaआयकर अपील सं.य/ Assessment Years:2016-17 बनाम / Acit, Cir-49(1), Kolkata M/S. Viswakarma Residency Uttarpan Complex, Ds-Iv, V/S. 2Nd Fl., Manicktala Civick Centre, Block-2 & 3, 2Nd Fl., Kolkata-700 054. Pan: Aaifv3279Q अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent .. Hearing Through Video Conferencing अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Manish Kanojia, Cit, Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri S.M Surana, Advocate, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-08-2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26-10-2021

5,310,000 595,252,811 600,562,811 13,115,545 2.18 Vinimay Pvt. Ltd Rotomac 25,786,550 706,668,643 732,455,193 2,077,101 0.28 Vinimay Pvt. Ltd Sthavistha 4,089,050 485,531,649 489,620,699 - 0.00 Mercantiles Pvt.Ltd Singrodia

ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S VISHNU DISTRIBUTORS PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is devoid of any merit, hence dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 50/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-2013

68 of the Act. The Revenue filed an appeal against the said judgement and the same was dismissed by the HonTjle Supreme Court in ITO vs. V.R. Global Energy (P) Ltd. [2020] 113 taxmann.com 31 (SC). The decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in case of CIT vs. Ritu Anurag Agarwal

M/S. DIGNAGAR SAMABAI KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITI LTD.,NADIA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 41(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High 5 AY: 2018-19 M/s. Dignagar Samabai Krishi Unnayan Samiti Ltd. Court held that a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139

KISHOREPUR PASCHIMANCHAL S K U S LIMITED,HOOGHLY vs. I.T.O., WARD - 23(1), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 716/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Kishorepur Paschimanchal Skus Limited Income Tax Officer, Bandipur, Malay Bandipur Ward-23(1), Hooghly Vs B.O. Bandipur Hooghly - 712617 [Pan : Aacak9370Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/05/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 13/10/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Denial Of Benefit Of Section 80P To The Tune Of Rs. 6,32,082/- By A.O. (Cpc) On The Ground Of Belated Filing Of Return Of Income. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Appreciated That The Delay In Filing Of Return Of Income Was Occasioned Due To Reasons Beyond The Control Of The Assessee. 3. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Appreciated That The Denial Of Benefit U/S 80P On Account Of Delay In Filing Return Of Income Was Beyond The Jurisdiction Of The A.O. (Cpc) While Exercising Power Of Processing Return Of Income U/S 143(1).” 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Received An Intimation From Cpc, Bangalore U/S 143(1) Of The Act Making An Adjustment In Returned Income By Which Cpc Did Not Grant Deduction U/S 80P Of The Act At Rs. 6,32,082/- Claimed By

68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High Court held that a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139(1) or 139(4) or under section 142(1) or section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon for entertaining claim raised under section 80P provided further proceedings in relation to such assessments

JAGANNATH KARBARH DESHAPRAN SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD.,EGRA, PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. I.T.O., WARD - 27(4), HALDIA, HALDIA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 667/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jagannath Karbarh Deshapran Skus Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Jagannath Karbarh Ward-27(4), Haldia Vs Pirijkhanbarh Egra Purba Medinipur -721422 [Pan : Aacaj0089M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/05/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 22/09/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Action Of The A.O. (Cpc) In Denying Deduction U/S Section 80P To The Tune Of Rs. 15,31,190/- For Belated Filing Of The Return Of Income. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Considered That The Reason For Belated Filing Of Return Of Income Was Beyond The Control Of The Society. 3. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Considered That The Issue Was Debatable & The Adjustment U/S 143(1) Was Not Permissible In Law.” 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Received An Intimation From Cpc, Bangalore U/S 143(1) Of The Act Making An Adjustment In Returned Income By Which Cpc Did Not Grant Deduction U/S 80P Of The Act At Rs. 15,31,190/- Claimed

68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High Court held that a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139(1) or 139(4) or under section 142(1) or section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon for entertaining claim raised under section 80P provided further proceedings in relation to such assessments

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. GOLDEN GOENKA CREDIT 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)

139 of the Act on 21.10.2022 declaring total income of Rs. 21,64,700/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 05.12.2022 at total income of Rs. 21,64,700/-. Being the year of the search, return of the instant year was selected for compulsory scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued

JATRAPUR SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD.,NADIA vs. DCIT, CPC , BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High Court held that a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139(1) or 139(4) or under section 142(1) or section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon for entertaining claim raised under section 80P provided further proceedings in relation to such assessments

SANTIPUR THANA CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SOCIETY LTD.,NADIA vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High Court held that a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139(1) or 139(4) or under section 142(1) or section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon for entertaining claim raised under section 80P provided further proceedings in relation to such assessments

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

ITO, WARD-45(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ASHOK TRADING COMPANY, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shrin.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07

68,894/- 2 M/s Mangalam Privahan Pvt. Ltd. 1,95,823/- ITA No.650/Kol/2012 A.Y. 2006-07 ITO Wd-45(2) Kol v. M/s Ashok Trading Co. Page 3 So the above expenses has been disallowed and added to the income of assessee. Before the Ld. CIT(A) , the assessee demonstrated that all the parties to whom the payments were made

AMRITRASHI INFRA(P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.C.I.T.-4, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2012-13 Amritrashi Infra Private Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax- (Pan: Aakca2544E) 4, Kolkata.

section 131 and recorded statements of Assessee Company’s director (4) In the statements recorded, rationale behind investment in Assessee Company by the shareholders was questioned and many other questions were asked and replied to. (5) The A.O perused the replies along with the enclosures and source of investments by the shareholders and was satisfied about the identity, genuineness

JASHOJIT MUKHERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 403/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Jashojit Mukherjee -Vs- Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata [Pan: Afapm 7208 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 are satisfied. 12. As far as applicability of section 41(1) of the Act is concerned, the question before us is limited to the applicability of Section 41(1) of the Act. The section insofar as it is relevant for our purpose is as below: "Profits chargeable to tax. 41. (1) Where an allowance or deduction