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

section 68 not only includes cash credit but also include a credit representing the value of shares on credit? After we have elaborately heard the learned Advocate for the appellant we find learned Tribunal was right in allowing the assessee’s appeal to the extent indicated by taking note of the various decisions of the High Court

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AVIMA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 68 of the Act. The burden of the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transactions as well as the creditworthiness of the creditor must remain confined to the transactions, which have taken place between the assessee and the creditor. In the present case, the assessee had received unsecured loan of Rs.1,45,00,000/- from the said

VISTA TIE UP PVT. LTD.,SILIGURI vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

3) read with section 144B on 28.03.2024, making an addition of ₹61,49,041/-, being 8% of the alleged unaccounted purchase transaction of ₹7,68,63,023/- to the returned income.\n3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). It was contended that the AO had made the addition purely

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)

68 of the Act. Similarly, the case of assessee is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Ambe Tradecorp (P.) Ltd., reported in [2022] 145 taxmann.com 27 (Gujarat), wherein it has been held as under :- "3. The issue in this case arose in respect of the assessment year

ANIL KUMAR PAIK ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-8(1), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 492/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anil Kumar Paik Acit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Vs 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor Suite No. 203 Off Hare Street Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aflpp6567R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: 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)”) Dt. 15/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld. Commissioner, Of Income Tax (Appeals)- N.F.A.C. Acted Unlawfully In Impliedly Sustaining; The Purported Addition Of Rs. 1,67.44,907/- Made The Ld. Assistant Commissioner, Of Income Tax, Circle 8(1) Kolkata By Invoking The Mischief U/S. 43Ca Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Without Satisfying The Parameters Thereof & The Adverse Conclusion Reached On That Behalf In Violation Of The Statutory Prescription Is Completely Unfounded, Unjustified & Untenable In Law. 2. For That The Specious Approach Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-N.F.A,C. Of Misreading Evidence, Considering Improper Facts

145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-N.FA,C. was absolutely in error in impliedly upholding the specious estimate to the extent of Rs. 49,11.694/- resorted to by the Id. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 8(1), Kolkata being the alleged gross profit on undisclosed sales earned by the appellant

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]

3,02,43,680/- , Shakti Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 2,81,203/- and Torrid Fintra Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 2,26,20,517/-. The Ld. A.R submitted that there was a correct balance of Rs. 2,15,000/- in the account of Torrid Fintra Pvt. Ltd. and only because of that the net amount

ACIT, CIRCLE-35, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. KEDIA PIPES, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 2098/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Circle – 35 Kolkata.................................………………………………………………….....Appellant Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 8Th Floor, 110, Shanti Palli, Kolkata – 700 107. [Pan: Aadfk 1107 D] M/S. Kedia Pipes...................…………………………………………………..............................Respondent 33/1, Netaji Subhas Road, 277, Marshall House, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700 001. Appearances By: Shri C.J. Singh, Jcit, Sr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate & Shri Sanjoy Modi, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 17, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 10, 2019 Order

section 145(3). In reply, it was submitted by the assessee that substantial expenditure on account of purchases and other expenses had remained unrecorded in the books of account for the pre-survey period and this fact was clearly pointed out by the partner of the assessee firm in his final statement recorded after the survey. It was submitted

KASTURI MEDICAL CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED,JOKA, THAKURPUKUR vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME-TAX OFFICER, DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.318/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Kasturi Medical Centre Pvt. Ltd……………….................................……….…Appellant 5, Diamond Harbour Road, 3A Bus Stand, Joka, Thakurpukur, W.B – 700104. [Pan: Aacck1872F] Vs. Acit, Nfac, Delhi…….…………..…………….…..….......……..…...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Indernil Banerjee, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Soumitra Ghosh, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 12, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) Passed For The Assessment Year 2018–19, Whereby The Addition Of ₹85,40,911 Made By The Assessing Officer On Estimated Basis After Rejection Of Books Of Account Under Section 145(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Was Confirmed. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2018–19 Declaring Total Income Of ₹2,05,59,220. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Under The Scrutiny Assessment Scheme, 2019, Primarily On The Issue Of Large Refund Claimed Out Of Advance Tax. Accordingly, Notices Under Section 143(2) & Section 142(1) Of The Act Along With Questionnaires Were Duly Issued & Served.

145(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was confirmed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for AY 2018–19 declaring total income of ₹2,05,59,220. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under the Scrutiny Assessment Scheme, 2019, primarily on the issue of large refund claimed

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

68 of the Act. Fortunately, for the assessee, CIT(A) has done an elaborate factual exercise, took into consideration, the creditworthiness of the 13 companies the details of which were furnished by the assessee. More importantly, the CIT noted that all these companies responded to the notices issued under section 133 (6) of the Act which fact

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

68 of the Act. Fortunately, for the assessee, CIT(A) has done an elaborate factual exercise, took into consideration, the creditworthiness of the 13 companies the details of which were furnished by the assessee. More importantly, the CIT noted that all these companies responded to the notices issued under section 133 (6) of the Act which fact

ITO,WD-12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SUNIL ALLOYS AND STEELS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 302/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 I.T.O. Ward-12(3), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Sunil Alloys & Steels Ltd. [Pan: Aabck 9629B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 30.12.2011 for the Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Though the revenue had raised various grounds before us, the central issue revolves on the ground as to whether the ld CITA was justified in deleting the determination of net profit

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND SPONGE AND IRON PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

68 of the Act. Similarly, the case of assessee is squarely\ncovered by the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of\nAmbe Tradecorp (P.) Ltd., reported in [2022] 145 taxmann.com 27\n(Gujarat), wherein it has been held as under :-\n\"3. The issue in this case arose in respect of the assessment year

I.T.O WD - 1,HALDIA., PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. SHRI GOUR HARI DEBDAS., PURBA MEDINIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the Cross objection of the assessee both are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

68,960/-. From the perusal of the profit and loss account filed by the assessee along with the said return, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the sales and job work receipts have been shown by the assessee at Rs.39,42,325/- as against Rs.14,92,745/- as shown in the Profit & Loss Account filed along with

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.

section 68 not only includes cash credit but also include a credit representing the value of shares on credit? After we have elaborately heard the learned Advocate for the appellant we find learned Tribunal was right in allowing the assessee's appeal to the extent indicated by taking note of the various decisions of the High Court

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND SPONGE AND IRON PRIVATE LIMITED , PATNA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

68 of the Act. Similarly, the case of assessee is squarely\ncovered by the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of\nAmbe Tradecorp (P.) Ltd., reported in [2022] 145 taxmann.com 27\n(Gujarat), wherein it has been held as under :-\n\"3. The issue in this case arose in respect of the assessment year

M/S PREMIER IRRIGATION ADRITEC (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

68 of the Paper Book. – Kindlysee Para 10 onwards of the Judgement at Pages 63 to 66 of the Paper Book. Pleasesee Para 10 wherein the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court referred to the Judgement ofApex Court in the case of HarshadShantilal Mehta and held that tax does not includeInterest or penalty. 4.4 Now, I refer to the Judgement

S K SARAWAGI & COMPANY (P) LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 of the Act. Similarly, the of assessee is squarely covered\nby the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Ambe\nTradecorp (P.) Ltd., reported in [2022] 145 taxmann.com 27\n(Gujarat), wherein it has been held as under :-\n\"3. The issue in this case arose in respect of the assessment year