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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 79/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(1), M/S. Maninya Comfin Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Vs 9, Lal Bazar Street Lal Bazar Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcm5088N] अपीलाथ"/ (Assessee ) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vinod Kr. Jain, A/R Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/07/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/08/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 26/09/2018 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Made U/S. 68 Of Rs. 7,96,16,343/- On Account Of Unexplained Cash Credit In The Form Of Share Capital With Premium. 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Kol., Is Erred In Deleting The Addition Without Considering The Facts That The Source Of Fresh Share Capital Amount Was Not Properly Explained By The Assessee During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings & The Director Of The Assessee Company Did Not Appear Against Summon U/S. 131 To Substantiate The Claim Of The Assessee With Documentary Evidences. 3. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A), Failed To Appreciate That When The Sums Are Credited In The Books Of Accounts

section 68 by the AO is not justified in the circumstances. Accordingly, the AO is directed to delete the addition made on this account. This ground of appeal is allowed.” 12. From going through the above finding of the ld. CIT(A) as well as the details submitted by the assessee in the paper book which in itself

NINESTAR MERCHANTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

164, 201 and 232 of the paper book. When the assessments of the share applicant companies are completed u/s 143(3) of the Act, the identity of the shareholder companies cannot be doubted. When the share applicant companies who have invested in the share capital of the assessee company, and when their respective assessments are completed

M/S. BMS SALES PVT. LTD., ,PURULIA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

164 taxmann.com 324 (Amritsar)]\ne) Koteshwar Rao v. DCIT [(2015) 64 taxmann.com 159 (Viz)]\n2.5. Ld. CIT-DR, on the other hand, relied heavily on the orders of\nthe authorities below and submitted that the case was validly\nreopened by the Id. AO by issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act under the\nnew scheme of taxation which mandatorily required

SILVERLAKE TRADERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA

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

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

68 of the Act is sustained. 4. Regarding the addition u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules it is clear from a reading of the ld. AO’s order that no exempt income Page 8 of 11 I.T.A. No.: 379/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Silverlake Traders Pvt. Ltd. has been earned on the investments made

SMT. SUSHILA DEVI KAJARIA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 36, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

Section 68 suggests that there has to be ere it of amounts in the books maintained by an assessees; such credit has to be of a sum during the previous year; and the assessees offer no explanation about that nature and source of such credit found in the books; or the explanation offer by assessees offers no explanation" means

NAVIN KUMAR KAJARIA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 35, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

Section 68 suggests that there has to be ere it of amounts in the books maintained by an assessees; such credit has to be of a sum during the previous year; and the assessees offer no explanation about that nature and source of such credit found in the books; or the explanation offer by assessees offers no explanation" means

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

164\nChq\n989,071\n98,907\nPan No: AABCR 2816D\nUsha Polychem India Pvt Ltd\n17,079,013\n21.06.2011\n1,079,013\nChq\nNo\n17,079,013\n1.R.N.Mkukherjee, 5th Floor\n31.03.2012\n1,440,000\nChq\n1,600,000\n160,000\nKolkata-700 001\nPan No: AAACU 3194J\nNote: 1) 'Chq' indicates 'Cheque' & 'RTGS' indicate 'Real Time Gross Settlement through banking

DCIT, CC-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. P & P HIGHRISE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

section 68 is not sustainable. The assessee has drew the attention of the ld. CIT(Appeals) towards the material submitted by it. A paper book running into 202 pages containing the material filed before the authorities below has been filed before us. For making reference about the nature of material, we would deem it appropriate to take note

ROHIT JALAN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 2205/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

164/-. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act and no scrutiny assessment was made. Thereafter, the AO issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The assessee is an individual who claimed LTCG to the tune of Rs.28,93,483/- on sale of shares of M/s. Tuni Textiles Ltd. The AO reopened the assessment on the basis

M/S SATYAM SMELTERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA

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]

68 of the Act as undisclosed cash credit. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who was pleased to confirm the action of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the assessee’s appeal. Aggrieved, the assessee is before us. 4. The Ld. AR assailing the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) contended that the assessee company

MAHENDRA KUMAR BAID,KOLKATA vs. ACIT CIRCLE 35, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1236/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Manish Kumar Baid -Vs- Acit, Cir-35, Kolkata [Pan: Ahmpb 3024 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1237/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mahendra Kumar Baid -Vs- Acit, Cir-35, Kolkata [Pan: Aejpb 7691 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. The ld AR argued that the ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the ld AO on the basis of the aforesaid findings and various observations made in the impugned assessment order. The ld AR submitted that the findings

MANISH KUMAR BAID,KOLKATA vs. ACIT CIRCLE 35, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1236/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Manish Kumar Baid -Vs- Acit, Cir-35, Kolkata [Pan: Ahmpb 3024 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1237/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mahendra Kumar Baid -Vs- Acit, Cir-35, Kolkata [Pan: Aejpb 7691 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. The ld AR argued that the ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the ld AO on the basis of the aforesaid findings and various observations made in the impugned assessment order. The ld AR submitted that the findings

ITO, WD-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI MITUL KRISHAN KAPUR, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 1245 & 1246/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2002-03 & 2003-04 Ito, Ward-2(1), Kolkata. -Vs- Mitul Krishan Kapur [Pan: Agdpk 8879 N ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,164/- During the year a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- was received by cheque and interest for the year was credited Rs.18,164/-. I consider the appellant’s explanation satisfactory. The loan was received by cheque on 23.08.2001. The impugned addition is hereby deleted. 5.9 Thus, summary of the appeal decision on the impugned 19 loans is hereunder

ITO, WD-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI MITUL KRISHAN KAPUR, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 1245 & 1246/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2002-03 & 2003-04 Ito, Ward-2(1), Kolkata. -Vs- Mitul Krishan Kapur [Pan: Agdpk 8879 N ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,164/- During the year a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- was received by cheque and interest for the year was credited Rs.18,164/-. I consider the appellant’s explanation satisfactory. The loan was received by cheque on 23.08.2001. The impugned addition is hereby deleted. 5.9 Thus, summary of the appeal decision on the impugned 19 loans is hereunder

HARI RAM AGARWAL ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 22(4) , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey & Shri M. Balaganeshi.T.A. No.2363/Kol/2018 (Assessment Year 2014-15) Hari Ram Agarwal Ito, Ward-22(4), Kolkata. -Vs- [Pan :Acdpa 1946 N]

68 of the Act by observing that the entire process of purchase in off market and selling at an inflated price is stage managed. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that the ld AO had treated the purchase of shares from Needful

SHRI UDIT AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. DCIT(IT)-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed accordingly

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2014-15 Shri Udit Agarwal V/S. Dcit (It)-2(1), 110, 3, Madan Mohan Burman Shanti Pally, Kolkata- Street, Kolkataa-007 107 [Pan No.Ahupa 0424 B] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 03-12-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 26-12-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22,Kolkata’S Order Dated 10.05.2017 Passed In Case No.71/Cit(A)/22/Kol/14-15/16-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Learned Representatives. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Ground Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Treating Its Long Term Capital Gains (Ltcg) Of ₹64,99,391/- To Be Unexplained Cash Credits U/S 68 Of The Act. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reads As Under:- ”06. Decision: 1. I Have Carefully Considered The Action Of The Ld. Ao In Treating The Amount Of Rs.67,24,391/- Being Claimed By The Appellant To Be Proceeds Of Shares Sold To Be Ltcg & Claimed As Exempt. The Findings Of The Ld. Ao Are Based On The Information Being Supplied By The Investigation Wing Of The Department At Kolkata. I Have Also Carefully Examined The Submissions Of The Appellant, Wherein

section 68, where any sum Is found credited In the books of the assessee for any previous year, the same may be charged to Income- tax as the Income of the assessee of that previous veer if the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source thereof Is, In the opinion of the Assessing Officer, not satisfactory

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAJA SHELTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 68 of the Act.\n6.2.13.Furthermore, the fact remains that no addition has been made by\nAO in respect of the said admitted claim of repayment of loan and thus his\nattempt to negate the argument of repayment of loan is perverse. Actually,\nthe loan has been repaid in the same and subsequent financial year by the\nassessee

BONGAON CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,BONGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 32,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2022-23 Bongaon Cooperative Credit Society Ltd..…………….……….……….……Appellant First Floor, Banerjee Market Jessore Road, Bongaon, Dist: North 24 Parganas, W.B - 743235.. [Pan: Aaaab6325N] Vs. Dcit, Circle-32, Kolkata….…………...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: S. Ghosh, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Ruchika Sharma, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 18, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.05.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 28.08.2022 Declaring Nil Income After Claiming Deduction U/S 80P Of The Act Of Rs.25,75,431.98/- . The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass. The Assessment Was Completed Vide Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Dated 15.03.2024 Determining Total Income At Rs.71,81,740/- By Disallowing Deduction U/S 80P Of The Act With Regard To The Interest Income Received From Banks. Bongaon Cooperative Credit Society Ltd 3. Aggrieved By The Said Order, The Assessee Preferred Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Wherein The Appeal Of The Assessee Has Been Dismissed.

68 of the Act would not apply since, the said section would be triggered once the sales found deposited with the assessee were found to be unexplained. In this case, it is not proved that the sums of money found credited have not been explained, rather cash book etc. have been presented for appropriate perusal before