M/S. WEEDO VENTURES PVT. LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S. EQUAL PROJECTS PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. I.T. O., WARD, 9(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Weedo Ventures Pvt. Ltd......……………………..................................……………..…….............Appellant [Earlier Known As M/S. Equal Projects Pvt. Ltd.] Property No. 11 Block-A, Maharana Pratap Enclave Pitampura Delhi - 110034 [Pan : Aacce 4580 C]

section 14A read with rule 8D interalia interalia making an addition of Rs.1,46,785/-. 2.1. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. First Appellate Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. First Appellate Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. First Appellate Authority

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

SOMA ROY,BARDWAN vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-1, DURGAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 of the Act. 4. The assessee filed an additional ground of appeal. The application for admission of additional ground, reads as follows:- “1. That your appellant had preferred the instant appeal being aggrieved by the appellate order passed by the Ld, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Durgapur who was pleased to uphold the purported action of the Ld. Assistant

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

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. 5. The ld. D/R, on the other hand, opposed the con The ld. D/R, on the other hand, opposed the contentions of the assessee and tentions of the assessee and submitted that notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued by ITO Ward submitted that notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued

MINTU DAS,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 28, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.08/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mintu Das………………………...………........………………....Appellant C/O S. N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Kolkata –1. [Pan: Adppd3034M] Vs. Acit, Circle-28, Kolkata…….……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pradip Biswas, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 21, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 06, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.11.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Pertaining To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Challenged The Validity Of The Assessment Proceedings Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act & Consequent To That, An Addition Of Rs.69,42,916/- U/S 68 R.W.S. 115Bbe Of The Act & Further Addition Of A Sum Of Rs.4,86,004/- U/S 69 R.W.S. 115Bbe Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 28.09.2015 By Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.16,50,920/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Compulsory

68 of the Act subjected to tax u/s 115BBE of the Act along with an amount of Rs.4,86,004/- on account of alleged unexplained expenditure in the hands of the assessee. 4. Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), where, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer’s order without

M/S. RUPASI BANGLA AGRO INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. ,PASCHIM MIDNAPUR. vs. ITO,WARD-38(1), MIDNAPUR. , PASCHIM MIDNAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 909/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Rupasi Bangla Agro Industries Income Tax Officer, Ward – 38(1), Pvt. Ltd. Vs Midnapur Duki, Village & P.O. Duki Dist. Paschim Midnapur - 721253 [Pan: Aaecr8402L] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31/10/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 05/07/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Ao In Adding Back Rs.13,29,00,000/- As Unexplained Cash Credit Under Sec 68 When The Appellant Filed The Pan Of Share Applicants & Are Registered With Roc Having Cin, Bank Statement & Source Declaration Of The Share Applicants & Thus The Onus Lay On The Appellant Was Duly Discharged But The Ao Did Not Proceed Further To Make Any Enquiry & Added Back The Amount Without Bringing Any Evidence To Prove Otherwise. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Ao In Adding Back Rs.13,29,00,000/- & Treating The Said Sum Of As Unexplained On The Ground That The Assessee Failed To Discharge Its Onus Simply Because The Share Applicants Did Not Appear In Response To Notice U/S 131 When The Same Has Nothing To Do With Ingredients To Prove The Cash Credit U/S 68. 2

68 of the Act. Assessment has been framed by the ACIT, Circle-38, Midnapore. 4.1. Aggrieved the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) raising various grounds but failed to succeed. 3 I.T.A. No. 909/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Rupasi Bangla Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal

M/S J R ROADLINES PVT. LTD.,GUJRAT vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.2534/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S J R Roadlines Pvt. Ltd..............................................…………………Appellant Plot No.14, Sector 8, Gandhidham, Kutch, Gujarat-370201. [Pan: Aadcp9373R] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata………...........……………….....………..…..Respondent Present: For The Assessee: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar For The Department: Shri Praveen Kishore, Cit-Dr, On 06.01.2022 Shri Sudipta Guha, Cit-Dr, On 26.05.2022 Date Of Hearing : January 06, 2022 & May 26, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 27, 2022 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 01.10.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Kolkata [Hereinafter As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when no enquiry was conducted by the Ld. Assessing Officer. 4. That the appellant craves to leave, add or amend any of the grounds during the course of hearing.” Apart from the above grounds of appeal, the assessee has taken the following additional/legal grounds of appeal: I.T.A. No.2534/Kol/2019 Assessment Year

M/S INDOVISION COMMODITIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.500/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Indovision Commodities Ltd. .....……………………....………....Appellant Block-B, Suit No.1A Mangalam, 24 & 26 Hemanta Basu Sarani, Dalhousie, Kol-1. [Pan: Aabcm8943Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Kolkata…...................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 06, 2024 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 23.02.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Notice U/S 148 & The Reassessment Completed By Ito Wd 6(4) Was Without Jurisdiction, Invalid & Bad In Law & Therefore The Entire Reassessment Is Liable To Be Quashed. 2. For That The Proceedings Initiated U/S 147 On Vague Reasons Without Any Tangible Material Or Independent Application Of Mind Simply On Borrowed Satisfaction, Suspicion & Surmises Were Bad In Law & Therefore The Entire Reassessment Is Liable To Be Quashed.

143(2) issued prior to supply of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment was bad in law and therefore the entire reassessment is liable to be quashed. 5. For that the reassessment order without mentioning the bar coded DIN or mentioning the fact the same would be issued separately was invalid and bad in law and therefore the entire

M/S SUNCITY NIKETAN PVT.LTD.,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.2101/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Suncity Niketan Pvt. Ltd………………....….......…....………....Appellant 5, Clive Row, Kolkata -1. [Pan: Aapcs4157E] Vs. Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata......................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 07, 2025 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 06.12.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.17,99,28,555/- Made By The Assessing Officer By Treating Credits In The Account Of The Assessee As Income Of The Assessee From Unexplained Sources. The Assessee Apart From Challenging The Validity Of The Additions Made/Confirmed By The Lower Authorities On Merits, Has Also Contested The Very Validity Of The Reopening Of The Assessment Order As Well As The Validity Of The Assessment Order For Want Of Issue Of Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act.

2], Kolkata vide letter dated 27/02/2019 wherein it has been stated that as per credible information held with them that M/s. Suncity Niketan Pvt Ltd, M/s. Manikala Dealmark Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Romed Developers Pvt. Ltd, M/s. Devghar Baarter Pvt. Ltd, M.A. financial Service Pvt. Ltd. and Megapix Vintrade Pvt. Ltd., funds are routed through various accounts of companies. It seems

M/S KHUSHI COMMOTRADE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should be deleted or set aside?” 4. The High Court, disagreeing with the Tribunal, held, that the provisions of Section 142 and sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 143

M/S. SHREE SHOPPERS LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 9(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma(सम" : "ी मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी संजय शमा" "या"यक सद"य) Assessment Year: 2012-13

68 of the Act and also raising additional ground raising legal issue. 7. As regards the additional ground, it is submitted that as per the CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011(F. No. 187/12/2010-IT(A-1), dated 31.01.2011 in case of the corporate assessee in metro cities where the returned income is above Rs.30 lakh the jurisdiction over such assessee would

JAYA BOTHRA,PURBA BARDDHAMAN vs. I.T.O.,WARD-1(1), BURDWAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील संख्या: 1632/कोल/2019 धनिाारण वषाः 2015-16

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Burdwan was absolutely in error in upholding the impugned addition of Rs. 10,89,000/- resorted to by the Ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Burdwan by failing to consider that no adverse evidence was adduced on record against the appellant and the purported adverse

ITO, WD.9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S MAHARAJ VINCOM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata……………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…..…..... Respondent 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] C.O. No.6/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…....... Cross-Objector 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] Vs Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata …………..….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 07, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: This Appeal By The Revenue & Corresponding Cross-Objection By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 08.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

2), the return had been accepted as correct. It may be argued that thereafter recourse could be taken to section 147, provided fresh material had been received by the Assessing Officer after the expiry of limitation fixed for framing the original assessment. So far as the present case is concerned we are of the view that it is evident

SRIMANTA KUMAR SHIT,PURBA MEDINAPORE vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 27(2), HALDIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 1911/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Srimanta Kumar Shit,………………...…………Appellant Rangamalaput, Junput-Contai, Purba Medinapore-721450, West Bengal [Pan:Bffps3635Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax..…Respondent Circle-27(2), Haldia, Basudebpur, Talpukur, Khanjan Chak, Haldia, Midnapore-721101, W.B. Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Lata Goyal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 22, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 19, 2024 O R D E R

143(3) of the Act read with section 144 of the Act was passed on 30.12.2019 making the following disallowances/additions: Disallowance of Trawler related Rs.1,14,97,589/- expenses and depreciation Addition on account of sundry Rs. 12,55,30,136/- creditors 3 Srimanta Kumar Shit Addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Rs.29,68

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)

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2012–13. 2. At the outset, the ld. AR challenges the very impugned order by taking legal ground that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have erred that ITO/Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction over the assessee to take up the assessment proceedings

ACIT, LTU - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. UCO BANK, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. M/S Uco Bank Acit, Ltu-2, Kolkata 10, Btm, Sarani, Kolkata – 700001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu3561B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), dated 27.02.2014 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as follows: “1. The Ld. CIT(A)-11, Kolkata has erred in law and on facts by deleting of addition of Rs.56,49,715/- made by Assessing Officer u/s 40(a) (ia) of Income

CONTEMPORARY NEWS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 7(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

sections": [ "144", "143(2)", "142(1)", "68", "158 BC(b)", "142", "292BB", "158 BC(a)" ], "issues": "Whether the assessment