ZYDUS HEALTHCARE LTD,GANGTOK vs. ACIT, CIR. 3(2), GANGTOK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 139/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Zydus Healhcare Limited,……..................Appellant (Successor To Zydus Healthcare Sikkim), 4Th Floor, ‘D’ Wing, Zudus Corporate Park, Scheme No. 63, Survey No. 536, Khoraj (Gandhinagar), Nr. Vaishnodevi Circle, Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Gujrat-382481 [Pan: Aaacg1895Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim-737101 Appearances By: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, Ca & Sonal Pandey, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 20, 2023 O R D E R

68,350/-. The ld. Assessing Officer has accepted the returned income by way of an assessment order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act passed on 18.08.2016. The ld. Principal Commissioner, Siliguri took cognizance of revisionary powers under section 263 of the Income Tax Act and set aside the assessment order vide his order dated

ITO, WARD-7(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S ANVIL ELECTRICALS PVT. LIMITED(FORMERLY KNOWN AS DAMIYA VANIJYA PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz)& Shri Rajesh Kumar]

3] [In favour of assesses]" Further, Hon'ble Delhi High, Court in the case of PCIT Ys, Himachal Fibres Ltd., Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 28.02.2018, has held as tinder: "Income from undisclosed Sources—Addition under section 68 Share application money—Where assessee had clearly revealed the identity of share applicants, no addition coulld be made ‘under section

M/S. INDIAN ROADWAYS CORPORATION LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CENTRAL - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. Principal Commissioner Of M/S Indian Roadways Corporation Ltd. Income Tax, Central-I, Irc House, 1, Sunyat Sen Street, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Kolkata-700012. Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci 7333 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

153 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, should be revised under 10 M/s Indian Roadways Corporation Ltd. A.Y: 2009-10 section 263 of the Act and accordingly he directed the ld assessing officer to add the amount of Rs. 10 lakh in the fresh assessment order being passed by him as per the direction given by him. 13. Aggrieved

DIPAK KUMAR DASBHOWMIK,PASCHIM MIDNAPORE vs. I.T.O., WARD - 38(1), MIDNAPORE , PASCHIM MIDNAPORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. ALEMBIC MERCHANTS PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue fails

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Central Cir-1(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Alembic Merchants Pvt. Ltd Pan: Aacca 0918Q Appellant Respondent

153(2) which provide that, no assessment or reassessment shall be made after mine months from the end of the financial year in which notice under section 148 is served. And in this case, notice under section 148 was served in financial year 2016- 17, hence, the assessment could have been made upto 31.12.2017. 3) For that

D.C.I.T., CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. NAVIN CONSTRUCTION & CREDIT PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross- objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

153) (2012) (Mum) has enumerated certain legal principles regarding taxation of cash credits under section 68 as under :- "(i) Section 68 can be invoked when following three conditions are satisfied -(a) when there is credit of.amounts in the books maintained by the assessee, (b) such credit has to be a sum of money during the previous year

DCIT, CC-3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMICUS REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

3 itself, were taken not during the search, but in the post search period. They also therefore cannot be treated as incriminating material obtained during the search. Besides these facts, the AO has not drawn any form of a link between the seized document CG-2, as mentioned by the AO himself, and these post search documents

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]

153(D) of 1961 Act. Rupees 9,09,110/- was added on account of unexplained cash under Section 69 of 1961 Act. Rs.15,09,672/- was added 4 Khushi Commotrade Pvt. Ltd.., AY 2010-11 on account of unexplained jewellery. Rupees 45,00,000/- was added on account of unexplained hundies and Rs.29,53,631/- was added on account

MADHU JAYANTI INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 214/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Madhu Jayanti International Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Cc-4(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcm 7502 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

153,98,09,000/- Expenditure debited to P& L Account 181,98,66,000/- Less Bank Interest and charges 3,58,73,000/- Operating Expenditure 178,39,93,000/- Operating Profit 24,41,84,000/- Operating Profit/Operating Cost (-)13.68% Operating Profit/Operating Revenue (-)15.85% 3.6. The ld TPO keeping in view of the business process carried out by the assessee, came

M/S SWIFT VINTRADE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. CIT, KOLKATA-1I, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10

3. During the course of hearing of the appeal, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. The Ld. AR filed a written submission that he was placing reliance on the decision of Subhlakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. [2015] 60 taxmann.com 60 and requested that the order of the Ld. Pr. CIT may be confirmed. The relevant findings of the Coordinate bench

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. SDR MEGHNATH INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

3 25,00,000/- Page 5 Page 2 on 15.07.2011 15,00,000/- Page 9 on 22.10.2011 11. Goodview Tradecom P. Ltd. The appellant during appeal, has furnished the Balance Sheet, Bank Statement and ITR of the source of source, even though, since the amendment to section 68 was introduced from 1.4.2013, it was not applicable for the period

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. G.S. ATWAL & COMPANY (ENGINEERS) PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and Cross

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

68,00,965/-. This was accepted by the Revenue. For buttressing the details of deposits in other years and a turnover achieved by the assessee has been compiled in a table, which has been noticed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) on page no. 20 of the impugned order. With the help of these details, it was demonstrated that

M/S. WEEDO VENTURES PVT. LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S. EQUAL PROJECTS PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. CIT(A)-3, 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]

68 of the IT Act 1961 ofRs.17,18,00,000 was uncalled for and hence the same be deleted. 00 was uncalled for and hence the same be deleted. 00 was uncalled for and hence the same be deleted. 3 Assessment Year:- 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Weedo Ventures Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Weedo Ventures

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]

68 of the IT Act 1961 ofRs.17,18,00,000 was uncalled for and hence the same be deleted. 00 was uncalled for and hence the same be deleted. 00 was uncalled for and hence the same be deleted. 3 Assessment Year:- 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Weedo Ventures Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Weedo Ventures

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

JKS INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, CENTRAL - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1073/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

68 of Rs. 55,13,750/- and second addition of Rs. 38,38,484/- u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Rules. JKS Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year:2011-12 Later on, Ld Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) has exercised his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. The ld PCIT noticed that the A.O has allowed deduction

COSMAT TRADERS (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 of the Act on the basis of arbitrary and perverse conclusions drawn by him on the facts of the cases relying on several arbitrary and perverse conclusions drawn by him on the facts of the cases relying on several arbitrary and perverse conclusions drawn by him on the facts of the cases relying on several judgments

M/S VINAYAK FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

3 to section 147 which is\nreproduced as under. For the purpose of assessment or reassessment under this section, the\nAssessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has\nescaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the\nproceedings under this section, notwithstanding that