J.J.DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 12(3),KOLKATA., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, A.M. & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, J.M.)

166/- (considered doubtful) but no schedule has been enclosed for such heads. Therefore, it is not known under which head it is shown. Also it is not known how application made for allotment of shares can be categorized under the head "Loans and Advances". In this case also, it has not been established beyond doubt that there was creditworthiness

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

RAM SWAROOP BAJAJ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] I.T.A No. 99/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Ram Swaroop Bajaj . –Vs- Ito, Ward-36(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aefpb 2300 D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is incorrect and should be deleted. The appellant should also be allowed to claim the benefit of the carry forward loss from the earlier year. 15. DECISION: 1. In this matter, I find that the appellant has submitted certain documents that according to him quantify the amount of capital gains

MARK STEELS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

68 ITA No.: 2603/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mark Steels Limited. addition of Rs. 50,00,000 is sustained. The ground of Appeal No.4 & 5 of the Appellant Is here by Dismissed. 8. In the result Appeal of the Appellant is dismissed. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before

M/S. RBS CREDIT & FINANCIAL DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 3, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1156/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Rbs Credit & Financial Development Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Pcit-3, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 3300 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 68 of the Act to the extent of Rs 2.79 crores which was even higher than the amount of Rs 1.3665 crores received by the assessee during the year in the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act. Hence it could be safely concluded that the addition made in the sum of Rs 2.79 crores towards share

GARUD CREDIT & HOLDING PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 9(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 1270/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Garud Credit & Holding Pvt. Limited,.........Appellant D.J. Shah & Co., 2, Elgin Road, Kolkata-700020 [Pan: Aaacg9791P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-9(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Veekaas S. Sharma, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 06, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 01, 2023 O R D E R

68 which were not at all applicable in the year under consideration which is pertaining to assessment year 2009-10 i.e. prior to A.Y 2013-14 and in this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Starpoint Construction (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT reported in(2022) 94 ITR TRIB (Trib

SATYAM SUREKA ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the different assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey] I.T.(S.S).A. No. 13 /Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 Satyam Sureka Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-3(3), Kolkata

68 of the Act. His further submission is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law by making addition of Rs. 17,74,878/- received from M/s Aakash Sureka Educational Trust u/s 56(2) of the Act. 14. The ld. D.R supports the impugned order. 15. As it appears from the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee only

A R UDYOG,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD 46(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

68 of the Act for making the addition and the\nprovisions of section 69C of the Act were not applicable and what\nwere applicable was the provisions of section 69C of the Act. It was submitted\nthat the additions are not sustainable and the same may be deleted.\nThe assessee has relied upon the following judicial pronouncements

M/S. ARUP KUMAR CHAKRABORTY,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 22(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 68 of the Act due to non production of the supporting documents. We find from the written submission that the assessee is a dealer in shares and doing his business in the name of M/s Manglam Investment. The business was being done through under broker MTSD, Prop. Manick Chand Pugalia. The said MTSD was working under the main

ITO, WARD - 22(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI ARUP KUMAR CHAKRABORTY, HOWRAH

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 68 of the Act due to non production of the supporting documents. We find from the written submission that the assessee is a dealer in shares and doing his business in the name of M/s Manglam Investment. The business was being done through under broker MTSD, Prop. Manick Chand Pugalia. The said MTSD was working under the main

LAXMIDHAN TRADELINK PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 68 of the Act, the Assessing Officer was justified in adding back the amounts to the Assessee's income. 16. The Appeal filed by the Appellant - Revenue is allowed. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and the law laid down above, the judgment of the High Court, the ITAT, and the CIT are hereby set-aside. The Order

CITYSTAR GANGULY PROJECTS LLP,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 9, , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm ]

166) and Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs J.L. Morrison (P) Ltd (366 ITR 593), the Ld. AR claimed that an assessment order cannot be held to be erroneous prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue for ‘inadequate enquiry’ as alleged by the ld. Pr. CIT. He further submitted that in such cases where

ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EXPRESS TRADELINK PVT. LTD, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 43/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Ward -5(1), M/S. Express Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Vs 64, Bentinck Street 3Rd Floor Kolkata - 700001 [Pan: Aacce0887C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate & Shri Asim Panda, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata – 7, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 23/09/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 36 Days In Filing The Present Appeal By The Revenue. Petition For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record Explaining The Reasons. On Perusing The Same, We Are Convinced That The Revenue Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing This Appeal In Time. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Admit The Appeal For Hearing. 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

166 pages indicates that whatever documents which the assessee needs to file in order to explain the identity and creditworthiness of the share applicants and genuineness of the transactions have been filed and thereby the primary onus casted upon the assessee by virtue of Section 68

M/S. GATEWAY FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC - 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

166/- made by the AO for the long term capital gain claimed by the assessee folding the same to be bogus. The addition, being based on the surmises & conjectures, need to be deleted. 2) That the assessee craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing

PRATIK AGARWAL BENEFICIARY TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, C.C.-3(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

166/- made by the AO for the long term capital gain claimed by the assessee folding the same to be bogus. The addition, being based on the surmises & conjectures, need to be deleted. 2) That the assessee craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing

PINKY AGARWAL ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

166/- made by the AO for the long term capital gain claimed by the assessee folding the same to be bogus. The addition, being based on the surmises & conjectures, need to be deleted. 2) That the assessee craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing

M/S. NISHIT AGARWAL BENEFICIARY TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC - 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

166/- made by the AO for the long term capital gain claimed by the assessee folding the same to be bogus. The addition, being based on the surmises & conjectures, need to be deleted. 2) That the assessee craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing

SRI HARTAJ SEWA SINGH,KOLKATA vs. DCIT(IT), CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2012-13

68, 97, 141, 165, 166, 193 and 241. The Show cause notice issued on 10.3.2017 by PCIT was on two issues namely payment of Finance Charges and legal expenses. The hearing was fixed on 17.3.2017 on the ground that the same were not revenue expenditure but capital expenditure relying on certain judgment. Another show cause notice was issued