EIH LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

68,20,321/- being 10% of the total expenditure of Rs. 6,82,03,213/- ignoring the decision of Hon’ble Kolkata Tribunal in assessee’s own case in EIH Limited vs. DCIT (2015) I.T.A. No. 316/Kol/2006 for A.y. 2002-03. 4.1. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record including the paper book

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

2,57,310 Brok &Comm Strenuous Exim Citygreen Agro Pvt Pvt Ltd 3765 3765000 Ltd 0 - Jhuma Dey 1100 1100000 Dovar Tie up Pvt Ltd 1,94,280 Trading Hemraj Financial Pvt Bhola Jaiswal 2000 2000000 Ltd 1,87,570 Brok &Comm Hemraj Financial Pvt Chaitali Basak 2000 2000000 1,92,220 JobWork Ltd The issue of share capital

ACIT, CC-3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SNOWTEX INVESTMENT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.) Asstt. Year : 2012-13 A.C.I.T, Cc-3(2), Kolkata Vs M/S. Snowtex Investment Ltd. Pan: Aaecs 0334C (Assessee/Department) (Respondent/Assessee)

2) Shri Amit Kumar - Rs.8,32,343/- 3) Shri Rajiv Kumar- Rs. 4,16,137/- However, the above notices were returned unserved by the postal authority and accordingly AO made addition. We note that for marketing and selling the insurance products, the company has to perform various activities which include Lead Generation Activities, Direct Mailers Distributions, Road Shows and Customer

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)

section 133(6) to the lenders where duly acknowledged and all the lenders confirmed the loan transactions by filing the documents which were placed before the tribunal in the form of a paper book. These materials were available on the file of the Assessing Officer and there is no discussion on this aspect. Thus, the tribunal rightly dismissed

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’).

145 ITR 2551 (All.) Trustees of H.E.H. Nizam’s Supplemental Family Trust v. CIT [2000] 242 ITR 3812 (SC) and CIT v. M.K.K.R. Muthu Karuppan Chettiar [1970] 78 ITR 69 (SC), etc. 14. In the present case the petitioner filed a Supplementary Affidavit stating that against the order of the CIT (Appeals) an appeal was filed before the Income

ITO, WARD-8(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S MERRIT FINTRADE PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 68 of the Act cannot be invoked. The case of the assessee also find support from the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court 7 I.T.A. No. 80/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s Merrit Fintrade Pvt. Ltd. in the case of V. R. Global Energy Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO in 407 ITR 145 (Mad). Similar ratio has been

INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S STANDARD LEATHER PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2010-11

145 (Guj-HC) : (2008) 217 CTR (Guj) 401, it was held that as per section 68, there should be cash credits of previous year. The section provides for a deeming fiction of treating the sum found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, being charged to income-tax as the income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

2), Kol, wherein the investments of the lender were before the AO and no adverse inferences were made regarding such investments to the tune of Rs.14.26 Crores. M/s V K Mercantiles Pvt Ltd has also been assessed for the A.Y: 2017-18, where also no adverse inferences were made. As per the audited accounts of the lender concern

DEPUTY COMMISSOENR OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

2), Kol, wherein the investments of the lender were before the AO and no adverse inferences were made regarding such investments to the tune of Rs.14.26 Crores. M/s V K Mercantiles Pvt Ltd has also been assessed for the A.Y: 2017-18, where also no adverse inferences were made. As per the audited accounts of the lender concern

SARASWATI GUPTA,HOWRAH vs. I.T.O.,WARD-47(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am]

68 of the Act. However sustained NP at 8% amounting to Rs. 21,88,372/ ing to Rs. 21,88,372/-. Thus giving partial relief to the assessee relief to the assessee. Still not satisfied with the action of the Ld. CIT(A) with the action of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is before us. 5. We have heard

M/S. IMC LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

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

2 “valuation of inventories” issued by the ICAI closing stock should be valued either at a cost or market value as on the date of balance sheet i.e. 31.03.2005. The assessee cannot take the future sale price of the product to determine the value of closing stock as on the balance sheet. The AO further observed that as per Accounting

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. I M C LTD, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

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

2 “valuation of inventories” issued by the ICAI closing stock should be valued either at a cost or market value as on the date of balance sheet i.e. 31.03.2005. The assessee cannot take the future sale price of the product to determine the value of closing stock as on the balance sheet. The AO further observed that as per Accounting

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. IMC LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

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

2 “valuation of inventories” issued by the ICAI closing stock should be valued either at a cost or market value as on the date of balance sheet i.e. 31.03.2005. The assessee cannot take the future sale price of the product to determine the value of closing stock as on the balance sheet. The AO further observed that as per Accounting

ACIT, CIRCLE-33, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. G. D. CONSTRUCTION & CO., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2010-11

145. (1) ----------------- (2)--------------- (3) Where the Assessing Officer is not satisfied about the correctness or completeness of the accounts of the assessee, or where the method of accounting provided in sub-section (1) or accounting standards as notified under sub-section (2), have not been regularly followed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer may make an assessment

DESANA POLY PLASTIC INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 34, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

68,583/- being employers' contribution under Section 43B of the Act. CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding that the assessee had made the payment before the due date" of filing of the return, which was a fact apparent from the record - that if the employees' contribution is not deposited by the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts

M/S. TEDIUM COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the revenue

Bench: the AO. Finally the AO added the amount as unexplained cash credit to the income of the assessee.

145 (Madras). It was held that when the assessee allotted share to a company in settlement of their existing liability of assessee to the said company, since no cash was involved in the transaction of said allotment of shares, conversion of this liability in which share capital and share premium could not be treated as unexplained cash credits under Section

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GRAPHITE INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, considering the discussions made above, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

68,082/-, which represented adjustment of lease premium of Rs. 81,650/-, rent of Rs. 3,26,600/- and excess usance charge of Rs. 59,832/- paid by the assessee to MIADB during the lease period. The ld. AO noticed that the appellant had computed LTCG on sale of part of the land by taking cost of acquisition

ITO, WARD-46(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ANUPAM NANDI, HOWRAH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri Aby T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.774/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2007-08 I.T.O., Ward-46(1) -Vs.- Shri Anupam Nandi Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Abipn 4303 N] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Md.Ghayas Uddin, Jcit,Sr.Dr For The Respondent : Shri Miraj D.Shah, Ar

2 uncles (i.e. two brothers of the father) who have waived their share of inheritance in the business with all its assets and liabilities including that of the pledged gold/jewelleries weighing 27,909.070 gms noted that the assessee was running the money lending business after the death of his grandfather and was having the pledged stock