HILTON COMMODITIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Hilton Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward 5(3) 9/12, Lal Bazar Street, Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Mercantile Building, Block-B, Chowringhee Square, Vs. 3Rd Floor, No.10, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacch1011P Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Ar Revenue By : Shri S Datta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025

68 of the Act. 04. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the original return of income on 26.09.2009, showing total loss of ₹3,642/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 read with section 148 of the Act and accordingly, the assessment was framed

M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

section 115JB of the\nAct is a self-contained code and only the disallowances mentioned in\nthe explanation could have been made. Further, clause (f) of\nExplanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act refers to the amount or\namounts of expenditure relatable to any income to which section 10\napplies. The Ld. AO has not made

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; (2) The ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in entertaining the additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules; and (3) The ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,35,500/-, which was added by the ld. Assessing Officer with the aid of Section 14A

BALHANUMAN COMMODEAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(4), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13

section as enumerated in the judicial decisions referred to above. 7.13 Accordingly, the addition of Rs 14000000/- made by the A.O u/s 68 of the Act is confirmed and the Ground of Appeal is Not Allowed. 8. Ground No.2: This ground has been raised against the action of the A.O. in making an addition of Rs 3500/- u/s 14A

VISH REALTY SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-5(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 250/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vish Realty Solutions Private Limited Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3), 55, Ezra Street Vs Kolkata 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcv9938N] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. Jhajharia, A/R Revenue By : Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/01/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/02/2024 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 Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -10 (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(E)”) Dt. 02/12/2019, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Io, Kolkata Erred In Passing An Order Dated 2Nd Of December, 2019 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant Without Allowing Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 10, Kolkata Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Share Application Money Ofrs. 5,86,00,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On Irrelevant Considerations & Arbitrary Grounds.

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete all or any of the grounds of appeal.” 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of development of property. Nil income declared in the return for Assessment Year

ELEGANT DEALMARK PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed, with Ground No

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

section 68 of I.T. Act. But, assessee failed to put forward any explanation Lill the date of passing of this order. That means assessee failed to discharge its onus to prove the genuineness of the said transaction and identify & creditworthiness of its shareholders” 1.1. The ld. AO also added an amount of Rs. 9,647/- u/s 14A

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

14A read with rule 8D. 9. That the appellant craves for leave to add, delete and modify any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 4. In the cross appeals for AY 2011-12 & AY 2012-13 most of the issues raised by the Revenue are common, therefore, as agreed by both the parties

BIRLA CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

14A read with rule 8D. 9. That the appellant craves for leave to add, delete and modify any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 4. In the cross appeals for AY 2011-12 & AY 2012-13 most of the issues raised by the Revenue are common, therefore, as agreed by both the parties

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

14A read with rule 8D. 9. That the appellant craves for leave to add, delete and modify any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 4. In the cross appeals for AY 2011-12 & AY 2012-13 most of the issues raised by the Revenue are common, therefore, as agreed by both the parties

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

14A read with rule 8D. 9. That the appellant craves for leave to add, delete and modify any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 4. In the cross appeals for AY 2011-12 & AY 2012-13 most of the issues raised by the Revenue are common, therefore, as agreed by both the parties

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ADD.CIT,RANGE-5,, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

14A to Rs. 10,00,000/-. Therefore, grounds raised by assessee’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes. 13. Now we take up revenue’s appeal in ITA 1722/Kol/2012 preferred by the revenue. Ground No. 1 is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,65,748/- made on account of advances

D.C.I.T CIR - 5,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

14A to Rs. 10,00,000/-. Therefore, grounds raised by assessee’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes. 13. Now we take up revenue’s appeal in ITA 1722/Kol/2012 preferred by the revenue. Ground No. 1 is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,65,748/- made on account of advances

ACIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KESORAM INDUSTRIES. LTD, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

14A to Rs. 10,00,000/-. Therefore, grounds raised by assessee’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes. 13. Now we take up revenue’s appeal in ITA 1722/Kol/2012 preferred by the revenue. Ground No. 1 is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,65,748/- made on account of advances

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADDL C.I.T RG - 5,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

14A to Rs. 10,00,000/-. Therefore, grounds raised by assessee’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes. 13. Now we take up revenue’s appeal in ITA 1722/Kol/2012 preferred by the revenue. Ground No. 1 is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,65,748/- made on account of advances

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

14A to Rs. 10,00,000/-. Therefore, grounds raised by assessee’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes. 13. Now we take up revenue’s appeal in ITA 1722/Kol/2012 preferred by the revenue. Ground No. 1 is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,65,748/- made on account of advances

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

14A to Rs. 10,00,000/-. Therefore, grounds raised by assessee’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes. 13. Now we take up revenue’s appeal in ITA 1722/Kol/2012 preferred by the revenue. Ground No. 1 is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,65,748/- made on account of advances

TRUE-MAN CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-7(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not appreciating the fact that Ld. AO has not issued the notice under section 143(2) during the assessment proceedings. 6. That the Appellant craves leave to alter, add or modify all or any of the ground or grounds

ITO, WARD-10(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S DREAMZ MET CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 2047/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ito, Ward-10(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Dreamz Met Construction Projects Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aagcm 2068 R ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 68 of the Act introduced with effect from April 1, 2013 will not have retrospective effect and would be effective only from the assessment year 2013-14. (c) In view of the above, question No. B as proposed also does not give rise to any 9 10 M/s Dreamz Met Construction Projects Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr. 2012-13 substantial