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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

68 of the Act. In the ld. CIT(A)’s order we find that the details of share allotment, the moneys received in the form of share application money/premium and ld. CIT(A) has mentioned by preparing chart in this context as under: “SDR MEGHNATH INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. DETAILS OF SHARE ALLOTMENT DURING F.Y. 2011-12 FACE VALUE OF SHARES

ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S FASTFLOW SECURITIES (P) LTD, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 32/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata...................……….........…..........………...…… Appellant Vs. M/S. Fastflow Securities Pvt. Ltd.........…....…….......….....…...…....... Respondent 41, N.S. Kolkata - 70001 [Pan: Aabcf8361P] Appearances By: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri V.K. Jain, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 15Th, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 13Th, 2023 आदेश / Order Per Dr. Manish Borad, Accounant Member: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 02.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 35 (Thirty Five) Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Impugned Order By Ld. Cit(A) Is Dated 02/09/2020 Which Falls Within The Period Of Pandemic Of Covid-19. Petition For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record By Revenue Explaining The Reasons For Delay, Owing To Pandemic Of Covid-19 During That Time. We Note That The Period Of Delay Falls During The Time Of Pandemic Of I.T.A. No. 32/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Fastflow Securities Pvt. Ltd

section 68 of the Act was applicable in the appellant's case just for the allegations as launched by the AO. I find that all relevant documentary evidences were before the AO who could have decided the case on merit but however this did not happen, The copies of replies u/s 133(6) of the Act filed

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

GANAPATI DEVELOPERS ,HOWRAH vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-47, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Madhumita Roy)

68 of the Act the ld. D/R submitted that the AO has given a table to the assessee for being filled up as can be seen from page 9 of the assessment order and that the assessee has not submitted the details as sought for and that the notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Act was not replied

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

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

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

ACIT, CIRCLE - 35, , KOLKATA vs. M/S. KWALITY STEEL PROCESSORS, KOLKATA

Accordingly appeal of the assessee dismissed

168/-) taken physically inventory of stock at the work shop at 321, G. T. Road(N), Howrah -711 202." After reconciliation at this stage it is established beyond all doubts if the Book Stock of the Associates concern M/s Sree Bishandas Iron Works is taken into account the entire physical stock would conform the stock in Books of Accounts

M/S. MITRA PARISHAD,KOLKATA vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

168. It has been stated by Shri Swapan Ranjan Dasgupta that since they had financial crunch, M/s. Herbicure got involved in giving accommodation entries. For answer to Question no. 23 (supra), we note that Shri Swapan Ranjan Dasgupta has explained in respect to donations it received and the modus operandi by which it has returned back whereas it does

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3, ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. M/S. BHARAT HI TECH (CEMENT) PVT. LTD., PURULIA

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

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

section 43(1) of the Act which states that “where as portion of the cost of an asset acquired by the assessee has been met directly or indirectly by the Central Government or a State Government or any authority established under any law or by any other person, in the form of a subsidy or grant or reimbursement

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S AMLUCKIE INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2541 & 2542/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16 Dcit, Cc-1(2), Kolkata…………..…....…………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. M/S Amluckie Investment Company Ltd.……………….....……...…..…..Respondent 2Nd Floor, 10 Princep Street, Kolkata-700072. [Pan: Aacca6749H] Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kr. Pati, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 12, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 18, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Present Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Both Dated 21.07.2025 Of The Cit(A)-20, Kolkata Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2013–14 2015-16 Respectively. Since Both The Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee & Arisen From Same Appellate Order, Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & We Are Going To Dispose Of These Appeals By Passing A Consolidated Order. 2. Both The Appeal Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 35 Days & The Revenue Has Filed Separate Petitions For Condonation Of The Delays. After Going Over The Said Petitions, We Find Sufficient Reasons Behind Such Delays & Consequently, The Delays In Filing Both The Appeal Are Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeals On Merits.

168 taxmann.com 188 (Del), Archit Gupta 210 ITD 27 (Del), Kantibhai D. Narola 436 ITR 302 (Guj), Shapoorji Pallonji &Co. 288 Taxman 661 (SC), Ranbaxy Laboratories 336 ITR 136 (Del), Shri Ram Singh306 ITR 343 (Raj), Dhakeswari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) and the Calcutta High Court’s recent decision in Principal CIT v. Sawankumar T. Jajoo (supra

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S AMLUCKIE INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2541 & 2542/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16 Dcit, Cc-1(2), Kolkata…………..…....…………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. M/S Amluckie Investment Company Ltd.……………….....……...…..…..Respondent 2Nd Floor, 10 Princep Street, Kolkata-700072. [Pan: Aacca6749H] Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kr. Pati, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 12, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 18, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Present Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Both Dated 21.07.2025 Of The Cit(A)-20, Kolkata Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2013–14 2015-16 Respectively. Since Both The Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee & Arisen From Same Appellate Order, Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & We Are Going To Dispose Of These Appeals By Passing A Consolidated Order. 2. Both The Appeal Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 35 Days & The Revenue Has Filed Separate Petitions For Condonation Of The Delays. After Going Over The Said Petitions, We Find Sufficient Reasons Behind Such Delays & Consequently, The Delays In Filing Both The Appeal Are Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeals On Merits.

168 taxmann.com 188 (Del), Archit Gupta 210 ITD 27 (Del), Kantibhai D. Narola 436 ITR 302 (Guj), Shapoorji Pallonji &Co. 288 Taxman 661 (SC), Ranbaxy Laboratories 336 ITR 136 (Del), Shri Ram Singh306 ITR 343 (Raj), Dhakeswari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) and the Calcutta High Court’s recent decision in Principal CIT v. Sawankumar T. Jajoo (supra

M/S. SCORPIO TIE UP PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 7(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Scorpio Tie Up Pvt. Income Tax Officer, बनाम / Ltd., 16, Ram Sevak Ward-7(3), P7, V/S. Mullick Lane, Cowringhee Square, Kolkata-700007 Aayakr Bhawan, [Pan No.Aamcs 7616 R] Kolkakta-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 03-07-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 25-07-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Kolkata’S Order Dated 22.02.2018 Passed In Case No.1598/2015- 16/Cit(A)-18/Wd-7(3)/F.Sl. No.2364/17-18/Kol Ex Parte Upholding The Assessing Officer’S Action Adding Its Share Application/Premium Of ₹1,26,00,000/- Is As Unexplained Cash Credits U/S. 68 Followed By Section 14A R.W. 8D Rule Disallowance Of ₹2,27,168/-, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. It Emerges At The Outset That The Cit(A)’S Lower Appellate Order Under Challenge Nowhere Specifies Points Of His Determination Followed By Detailed Reasoning As Envisaged U/S. 250(6) Of The Act. There Is Further No Observation In His Lower Appellate Order As To Whether Assessee Had Been Served Notice Of Hearing Or Not.

68 followed by section 14A r.w. 8D Rule disallowance of ₹2,27,168/-, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income

K.Y.S. SPONGE IRON PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1),, KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Any Other Issue.

168/- (u/s 69A of the Act) and addition of Rs. 2,12,87,500/- (u/s 68 of the Act). Aggrieved with this, the assessee has approached the Ld. CIT(A) were also he could not succeed on either of the issues. 2 K.Y.S. Sponge Iron Pvt. Ltd. 1.1 Thereafter, the assessee is seen to have approached the ITAT with several

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SURESH KUMAR BANTHIA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross\nObjection of the assessee is partly allowed

168 taxmann.com 574 (Delhi), the assessing officer also received\ninformation from investigation wing that the assessee had purchased penny scrips.\nBased on the information and material available, Assessing Officer issued a notice\nunder section 148, for reassessment of income after prior approval from the competent\nauthority. The reassessment order was passed wherein additions were made under\nsection 68

TRIMINE AGENCIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 10(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

168 days for this the assessee has filed condonation petition., which are as follows- 2 I.T.A. No. 908/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Trimline Agencies Pvt.Ltd. “1. That the appeal filed against the aggrieved assessment order was disposed off by the Hon’ble Ld. CIT(A), NFAC vide an order dated 30.08.2023, the same was served on the mail

MADHUBAN DEALERS PVT. LTD. PRESENTLY KNOWN AS MADHUBAN DEALERS LLP,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-13, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

68 of the Act which was replied on 18.03.2019 in which it was pointed out that the information did not pertain to AY 2010-11 but to AY 11-12. It was also stated before the AO that AY 2011-12 was reopened and after necessary verification, the assessment was framed u/s. 143(3)/147

ACIT, CIRCLE - 34, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EASTERN DISTRIBUTORS, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-34, Kolkata……......……………...................Appellant Vs. M/S. Eastern Distributors Pvt. Ltd…..…….......................…..……………….…...……..................Respondent 3, Mangoe Lane Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aadfe 5901 B]

168 ITR 493 (Cal HC), for the proposition that the assessee cannot be held responsible if a person is not found in an address after a gap of four years and it cannot be held that such person is non-existent. He further relied on the following case-law:-  Diagnostics vs. CIT; ITA No. 153 of 2004; Hon’ble Calcutta