REDLILY ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 4(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2236/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Redlily Enterprises Pvt. Limited,…..………Appellant 33/1, Netaji Subhas Road, 167, Marshall House, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aabcr2177D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………...……...Respondent Ward-4(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

section 68 of the Act. 7. I have heard both the sides. It was the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the ld. Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT(Appeals) have not considered the details filed by the assessee and passed orders. He further submitted that in order to prove the genuineness of the transactions

PRAGYA TRADERS (P)LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 68 of the Act has held that where the Revenue urges that the amount of share application money has been received from bogus shareholders then it is for the Income Tax Officer to proceed by reopening the assessment of such shareholders and assessing them to tax in accordance with law. It does not entitle the revenue

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SIDDHESHWARI VYAPAAR PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2280/Kol/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Years :2012-2013) Dcit, Central Circle-1(2), Vs Siddheshwarivyapaar Pvt Ltd Kolkata 2Nd Floor, 159, Ravindra Sarani Kolkata-700007 Pan No. :Aancs 2337 J (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) रधजस्वकीओरसे /Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Cit-Dr निर्धाररतीकीओरसे /Assessee By : Shrisoumitra Choudhury & Rainak Jain, Advocates सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenueagainst The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-20, Dated 06.05.2025For The Assessment Year2012-2013. 2. The Appeal Of The Revenue Is Barred By 69 Days. Considering The Submissions Of The Ld. Cit-Dr & Looking To The Facts Of The Case, We Condone The Delay Of 69 Days In Filing The Present Appeal By The Revenue & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 3. The Only Issue Raised In This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.6,82,00,000/- Made U/S.68 Of The Act On Account Of Unexplained Cash Credits Received From Shell Entities In The Guise Of Share Capital.

167 taxmann.com 219 (Karnataka) Nimesh Maheshbhai Shah HUF vs. ITO [2025] 171 taxmann.com 24 (Gujarat) Bhavin JayendrakumarSoni vs. DCIT [2024] 165 taxmann.com 109 (Gujarat) Adinath Leasing And Finance P. Ltd vs Income Tax Officer 2022 Taxscan (ITAT) 1318 Anju Daruka vs ITO, Ward-3(1) 2025 (4) TMI 208-ITAT Kolkata Pr. CIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas

NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

68,24,795/- for the A.Y. 2015-16. In the instant case, the Assessing officer received the information as the assessee had received accommodation entry totaling of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- from M/s Primary Investment Consultants Pvt Ltd (Rs. 40,00,000/- + 25,00,000/- + 50,00,000/-), and Rs. 75,00,000/- received from M/s Mangal Chand Property

NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

68,24,795/- for the A.Y. 2015-16. In the instant case, the Assessing officer received the information as the assessee had received accommodation entry totaling of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- from M/s Primary Investment Consultants Pvt Ltd (Rs. 40,00,000/- + 25,00,000/- + 50,00,000/-), and Rs. 75,00,000/- received from M/s Mangal Chand Property

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

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 of the Act. 11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the relevant material placed before us and carefully gone through the decisions relied by the ld. Counsel for the assessee. Revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Act are challenged before us by the assessee claiming that the ld. CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction and further

ITO, WARD-6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAGHUVIR RETAILERS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. No. 1129/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Income Tax Officer,………………..……………..Appellant Ward-6(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, 6Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 -Vs.- Raghuvir Retailers Pvt. Limited,.……….....Respondent Mandawa Shikhar, 151, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata-700026 [Pan:Aaecr8231M] Appearances By: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri Abhisek Bansal, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee

68, read with sections 147 and 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Accommodation entries) - Assessment year 2008-09 - Assessee filed its return of income which was accepted without scrutiny - Assessing Officer issued impugned notice to reopen assessment on ground that as per information, assessee company had received share capital and share premium of Rs. 20 lakhs

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2(2), JALPAIGURI vs. SMT. SUBBULAKSHMI DEVADOSS L/H OF LATE SHRI NIRMAL PALIT, CHANNAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

167, shall, so far as may be and to the extent to which they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this section, apply in relation to a legal representative. (6) The liability of a legal representative under this section shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (4) and sub-section (5), be limited

RAGHVENDRA PRATAP SINGH,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 28, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

section 68. (b) For that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in holding that the addition made erroneously u/s 68 by the A.O. was liable to be added u/s 41(1) of the Act. 9.The appellant craves leave to add further grounds of appeal or alter the grounds at the time of hearing. 4. ld. Counsel

ARYAN PROMOTERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 2(1),, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Aryan Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Cc-2(1), Ruby House, 8, India Exchange Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, Place, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700001, 110, Shantipally, Vs. West Bengal Kolkata-700107, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aagca2975B Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan& Ms. Lata Goyal, Ars Revenue By : Shri Manas Mondal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.11.2025

167 ITR 471 (SC), Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) vs. ACIT [2019] 419 ITR 732 (SC) dated 07-11-2019. Considering the facts of the case in the light of the aforesaid decisions, we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 04. The assessee ,at the time of hearing, pressed ground no.4, which is against

SATABDI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 10(2),, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Shri Satabdi Developers Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward 10(2) Ruby House, 8, India Exchange Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, Place, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700001, 110, Shanti Pally, Vs. West Bengal Kolkata-700107, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aakcs8130L Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan& Ms. Lata Goyal, Ars Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.11.2025

167 ITR 471 (SC) and Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) vs. ACIT [2019] 419 ITR 732 (SC) dated 07-11-2019. Considering the facts of the case in the light of the aforesaid decisions, we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 04. Ground nos.1 to 3 are in support of ground no.4 while the issue

M/S BIHARI LAL MALPANI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 43(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey & Shri M. Balaganeshi.T.A. No.527/Kol/2017 (Assessment Year 2013-14) M/S Bihari Lal Malpani Ito, Ward-43(1), Kolkata. -Vs- [Pan :Adupm 6438 R]

section 68 of the Act by observing that the assessee had not reflected the exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act in the return of income and no revised return of income was filed by the assessee and the nature of transactions of aforesaid capital gain are bogus. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. We have

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

167 days for which condonation petitions were filed before the tribunal praying for the condoning the delay. On perusal of the condonation petitions and the reasons stated for delay in filing the appeals, we find that reasons to be genuine and bonafide. The Ld. D.R did raise objections in condoning the delay. Keeping in view reasons explaining the delay

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 4 KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

167 days for which condonation petitions were filed before the tribunal praying for the condoning the delay. On perusal of the condonation petitions and the reasons stated for delay in filing the appeals, we find that reasons to be genuine and bonafide. The Ld. D.R did raise objections in condoning the delay. Keeping in view reasons explaining the delay

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

167 days for which condonation petitions were filed before the tribunal praying for the condoning the delay. On perusal of the condonation petitions and the reasons stated for delay in filing the appeals, we find that reasons to be genuine and bonafide. The Ld. D.R did raise objections in condoning the delay. Keeping in view reasons explaining the delay

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

167 days for which condonation petitions were filed before the tribunal praying for the condoning the delay. On perusal of the condonation petitions and the reasons stated for delay in filing the appeals, we find that reasons to be genuine and bonafide. The Ld. D.R did raise objections in condoning the delay. Keeping in view reasons explaining the delay