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

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

section 69A. This aspect has been deliberated upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in numerous decisions. Relevant portion from following case laws are extracted below: i. Sreelekha Banerjee v CIT (1963) 49 1TR 112 (SC) ii. Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v CIT[1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) (iii) Roshan Di Hatti

ART RUBBER INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

150/- made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) on account of delayed payment of employees contribution to PF and ESI paid after the due dates prescribed in the relevant Statutes but before the due date of filing of return under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 1

ELLENBARRIE INDUSTRIAL GASES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Ground No.2 raised by the assessee is allowed, and ground

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1687/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Ellenbarrie Industrial Gases Vs. Ito, Ward-8(2), Kolkata Ltd. 34, Ripon Street, Kolkata – 700016. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaace 5770 E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri A.K. Bandyopadhyay, Fca Respondent By :Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06/12/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/02/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2007-08, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-16, Kolkata, In Appeal No.352/Cit(A)-16/Kol/2014-15/W-8(2), Dated 13.07.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S154/143(1) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 16-04-2009. 2.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Lncome Tax (Appeals)- 16, To The Extent That He Has Confirmed The Order Of Ld. Lncome Tax Officer Ward 8(2) Kolkata, Is Contrary To Law & Facts Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Lncome Tax (Appeals)-16 Had Ignored The Fact That Assessed Tax For The Purpose Of Section 234B & 234C Of The Lncome Tax Act 1961 Was Computed Without Considering Available Mat Credit Of Rs.12,91,616/-Upto The Assessment Year 2006-2007. Computation Of Lnterest Under Section 234B & 234C Was Not Made In Accordance With Explanation 1(V) To Sub-Section (1) Of Section 234B & 234C Of Lncome Tax Act 1961;

68,976/- 4. Aggrieved by the order passed by the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who has confirmed the addition made by the AO. The assessee submitted before the CIT(A),that interest u/s 234B and 234C are not leviable in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

M/S MEDI DRIPS CARRIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-12(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.471/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) M/S Medi Drips Carries Pvt. Ltd Vs. Ito, Ward-12(4), 8Th Floor, R.No.818, P-7, Chowringhee Square, 4, Synagogue Street, Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700069 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcm 8139 Q .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashish Rustogi, Aca Revenue By : Shri Saurav Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 01/03/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 08/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2008-09, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-Xii, Kolkata, In Appeal No.490/Xii/12(4)/10-11, Dated 11.11.2013, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 28.12.2010. 2. The Said Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Time Barred By Four Days. The Assessee Filed The Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Expressed The Reasons Of Delay. After Verification Of Petition We Found That There Was A Reasonable Cause For Four Days Delay In Filing The Appeal. Even Ld Dr Did Not Object To Condone The Delay. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Hearing. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.09.2008. Subsequently The 2 M/S Medi Drips Carries Pvt. Ltd. Assessee Company Filed Its Revised Return Of Income On 9-12-2008

68,008 written back for asst. yr. 1997- 98, on its add back, results in the book profit for that year to increase to Rs. 15.39 lacs, the tax (including surcharge @ 13 per cent) on which works to Rs. 1,30,449, as against the tax liability for the year, which stands assessed at Rs. 4,32,146 (paper book

M/S. BHIKSHU POLYMERS PVT. LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S. JEEVAN COMMOTRADE PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

150 Profit (+)/Loss(-) before tax 1,723 Less Provision for Taxation 531 Profit (+)/Loss(-) after tax carried to Balance Sheet 1,192 I.T.A. No. 1538/Kol/2024 M/s Bhikshu Polymers Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier known as M/s Jeevan Commotrade Pvt. Ltd.) 3.1. It is seen that the profit and loss account filed by the assessee paints a rather grim picture about the qualitative

MAITHAN CERAMIC LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 7(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Section 148. The purpose\nbehind this procedural check is to save the assessees from\nharassment resulting from the mechanical reopening of\nassessments.\"\nGrant of sanction by the appropriate authority is a pre-condition for\nassessing officer to assume jurisdiction u/s 148 to issue a re-\nassessment notice.\nA statutory authority may lack jurisdiction if it does not fulfil

DCIT,CIRCLE-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. WEST BENGAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals being ITA Nos

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

section 28/29 of the Act. 5. The main object for which the appellant company was established is to secure and assist in the expeditious and orderly establishment, growth and development of industries in the State of West Bengal. Among its ancillary objects it had the following objectives. "4. To advance loans and participate in the share capital of companies

ACIT, CIR-40, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUNDARLAL MOHANLAL SARDA & OTHERS, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :007-08

150. He submitted that all the relevant information with regard to the transfer of movable/immovable properties as well as capital expenditure were duly disclosed in the income tax return. The ld. AR in support of his claim drew our attention on page 4 of the paper book where the income from transfer of movable/immovable assets was duly disclosed and offered

M/S. BARDHAMAN DHARMARAJ PAPER MILL PVT. LTD.,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BURDWAN

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year : 2015-16

68) (I) Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif vs. CIT 50 ITR 1 (SC):- "Whether the burden of proving the source of the cash credits is on the assessee?" It seems to us that the answer to this question must be in the affirmative and that is how it was answered by the High Court. It is well established that

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BURDWAN, BURDWAN vs. M/S. BARDHAMAN DHARMARAJ PAPER MILL PVT. LTD., BURDWAN

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year : 2015-16

68) (I) Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif vs. CIT 50 ITR 1 (SC):- "Whether the burden of proving the source of the cash credits is on the assessee?" It seems to us that the answer to this question must be in the affirmative and that is how it was answered by the High Court. It is well established that

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EIH LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

68,782.13 The leading Hotels of the World 72,817.08 Leading Interactive Reservation 16,406.00 Provision for 388 nights 14,379.00 Provisions of different months 7,82,966.53 -------------------- 1,79,13,387.84 -------------------- Out of the above payments, the assessee submitted that payments to Oberoi Contact Centre being inter unit payments, should not be taxable in India and consequently, not liable

EIH LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

68,782.13 The leading Hotels of the World 72,817.08 Leading Interactive Reservation 16,406.00 Provision for 388 nights 14,379.00 Provisions of different months 7,82,966.53 -------------------- 1,79,13,387.84 -------------------- Out of the above payments, the assessee submitted that payments to Oberoi Contact Centre being inter unit payments, should not be taxable in India and consequently, not liable

SMT. SUCHARITA KAR,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-55(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

150 guests, it is very difficult to gather the information regarding the status and full address of such persons. In this regard we may refer to the provision u/section 56(2)(vii) of the Act relevant to the year under consideration: Section - 56, Income-tax Act, 1961-2009 F.—Income from other sources Income from other sources 56. (1

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MIRA BIBI, MURSHIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

1), the following incomes, shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head \"Income\nfrom other sources\", namely :-\n(vii) where an individual or a Hindu undivided family receives, in any previous year, from\nany person or persons on or after the 1st day of October, 2009 but before the 1st day\nof April

ACIT, CIRCLLE-34, KOLKATA vs. SUBHAS KUMAR KEDIA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1677/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Acit, Circle-34, Kolkata Vs Subhas Kumar Kedia, 41, N.S.Road, Kolkata Pan No. :Afnpk 9669 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Ms. Shreya Loyalka, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 05.06.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- I) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Erred In Quashing The Order U/S.148A(D) & All Subsequent Proceedings. Ii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Failed To Acknowledge The Fact That The Assesse Had Not Expressed Any Grievance Against The Validity Of Order U/S 148A(D) By Moving Any Writ Petition Which Should Have Been Done In Case Of Any Grievance After Getting The Sald Order U/S.148A(D). Iii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Erred In Quashing The Order When The Ld. Cit(A) Has No Jurisdiction To Deal With The Question Whether The 148A(D) Order Was Passed Validly Or Properly As An Order U/S.148A(D) Is Not An Appealable Order Before Ld. Cit(A) As Per Section 246A.

68,850/- made by the AO. The grounds of appeal 3 to 7 are allowed for statistical purpose. 6.5 The appellant in his grounds of appeal 8 to 15 has assailed the AO for making an addition of Rs. 75,60,00,000/- by incorrectly invoking section 69A, without providing an opportunity of being heard before proposing variation, adding

ACIT,CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TRAXPO ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

150 YOG PETRO PVT. LTD 1,00,000 OUTSTANDING LIABILITIES 3,29,986 10,62,38,834 The Learned AO for want of proper details to be furnished by the assessee concluded the following :- - that the assessee had failed to substantiate the genuineness and veracity of the alleged transactions with credible documentary evidences and complete postal addresses. - that since

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos. 86 & 87/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 & I.T.A. Nos. 88 & 89/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Saraswati Gupta,..................................Appellant Radha Kunj, 4D, 181, Dharamtalla Road, Salkia, Howrah-711106 [Pan: Adapg1993M] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,...............................Respondent Ward-47(1), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001 Appearances By: Shri Chirag Desai, Office Staff On Behalf Of Shri Miraj D. Shah,A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Jcit, Sr. D.R.,Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 22, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 04, 2023 O R D E R

68 of the Act cannot be invoked. 12. We notice that recently similar issue came for adjudication before the Coordinate Bench Ranchi in the case of Rakesh Kumar Jha –vs.- ITO (2023) 150 taxmann.com 298 and this Tribunal after considering the judicial precedence on this issue has decided it against the assessee holding that in case of not maintaining books

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos. 86 & 87/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 & I.T.A. Nos. 88 & 89/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Saraswati Gupta,..................................Appellant Radha Kunj, 4D, 181, Dharamtalla Road, Salkia, Howrah-711106 [Pan: Adapg1993M] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,...............................Respondent Ward-47(1), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001 Appearances By: Shri Chirag Desai, Office Staff On Behalf Of Shri Miraj D. Shah,A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Jcit, Sr. D.R.,Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 22, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 04, 2023 O R D E R

68 of the Act cannot be invoked. 12. We notice that recently similar issue came for adjudication before the Coordinate Bench Ranchi in the case of Rakesh Kumar Jha –vs.- ITO (2023) 150 taxmann.com 298 and this Tribunal after considering the judicial precedence on this issue has decided it against the assessee holding that in case of not maintaining books

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos. 86 & 87/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 & I.T.A. Nos. 88 & 89/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Saraswati Gupta,..................................Appellant Radha Kunj, 4D, 181, Dharamtalla Road, Salkia, Howrah-711106 [Pan: Adapg1993M] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,...............................Respondent Ward-47(1), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001 Appearances By: Shri Chirag Desai, Office Staff On Behalf Of Shri Miraj D. Shah,A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Jcit, Sr. D.R.,Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 22, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 04, 2023 O R D E R

68 of the Act cannot be invoked. 12. We notice that recently similar issue came for adjudication before the Coordinate Bench Ranchi in the case of Rakesh Kumar Jha –vs.- ITO (2023) 150 taxmann.com 298 and this Tribunal after considering the judicial precedence on this issue has decided it against the assessee holding that in case of not maintaining books