BALAKA VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 160 & 161/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), 9/12, Lal Bazar Street Vs Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcb2610B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R & Saurav Gupta, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Instant Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”). Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 29/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act & Ita No. 161/Kol/2023, Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 28/11/2023, Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act, For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds In Both These Appeals, But The Effective Issue Raised In Ita No. 161/Kol/2024 Is Against The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act For Unexplained Share Capital Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) & In Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Addition Made

3) or 147 and since they have been assessed by the Income Tax Department itself, the revenue cannot challenge such source in the hands of the assessee company and hence the addition made in such respect is liable to be deleted. 7.3. The Identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions as require by the law is proved beyond doubt

BIMAL KUMAR DROLIA,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-43(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

3) Kolkata stated that Mr. Prem Narayan Khandelwal a practicing CA had directed him to open this account in PNB. The transaction made in PNB was neither related to him nor his business. The account was fully operated by Mr. Khandelwal and the appellant only used to get some commission from Mr. Khandelwal in cash which is very negligible

BALHANUMAN COMMODEAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(4), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13

section 69A. This aspect has been deliberated upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in numerous decisions. Relevant portion from following case laws are extracted below: i. Sreelekha Banerjee v CIT (1963) 49 1TR 112 (SC) ii. Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v CIT[1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) (iii) Roshan Di Hatti

DCIT, C.C.-3(4), KOLKATA vs. M/S TANISHQUE TRADE LINK PVT. LTD, HOWRAH

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 17/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tanishque Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata Vs Bhabatarini Apartment G.T. Road, Room No. 602 Howrah - 711201 [Pan : Aacct7512R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, Fca Revenue By : Shri Biswanath Das, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/01/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 24/09/2020, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That On Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As In Facts In Allowing The Bogus Share Capital Raised In The Books Of The Assessee Without Appreciating The Fact That The Assessee Failed To Discharge Its Primary Onus To Prove & Establish The Identity & Creditworthiness Of The Investor Companies & Genuineness Of The Transaction. 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As In Facts In Ignoring That The Identity & Creditworthiness Of The Shareholders & Even The Genuineness Of The Transactions Remained Unexplained. 3. That On Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Invoking His Powers U/S. 250(4) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 In Directing The Assessing Officer To Make Further Enquiry & Report The Results Of The

172 (Delhi) 7. We have heard rival contentions, perused the material available on record and the case-laws cited by both the sides. 8. The revenue is aggrieved with the finding of the ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the Act at Rs.9,08,00,000/- towards unexplained share capital

NAVANSH VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

172 (Bom)]. It is thus contended that even if entries in the books of accounts of the companies subscribing to the shares of the assessee company cannot be brought to tax in the hands of the assessee. It is thus contended that the impugned additions under section 68 are devoid of any legally sustainable basis, and I must delete

SHANKAR TRADERS & DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 199/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shankar Traders & Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Distributors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Aaykar Bhawan, A-Block, 1St Floor, Mercantile P-7, Chowringhee Square, Building, 9, Lal Bazar Street, Kolkata-700, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, [Pan: Aadcs8907L] West Bengal अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent)

Section 68 of the Act.” 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, thus, has held that once the assessee has submitted the documents relating to identity, genuineness of the transaction, and credit-worthiness of the subscribers, then the AO is duty bound conduct to conduct an independent enquiry to verify the same. However, as noted above, the Assessing Officer

M/S PREMIER IRRIGATION ADRITEC (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

172 ITR 1 a division Bench of thiscourt held that expression "tax" for the purposes of section 179 would includea penalty. The judgement of the Division Bench cannot now be reflective of thecorrect position in law in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in HarshadShantilal Mehta case in so far as the aforesaid issue is concerned

DCIT, CENTRAL -4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAJESH AUTO MERCHANDISE PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 68 by proving the identity of the creditors by giving their complete addresses, GIR Nos./PAN\nas well as confirmations along with the copies of assessment orders of individual creditors wherever readily\navailable, cash credits could not be treated as non-genuine on the ground that summons issued to some of the\ncreditors could not be served

M/S. BLUE LOTUS DESIGNERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-7(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 M/S Blue Lotus Designers V/S. Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd., 6/1C, Pranath Ward-7(4), Aayakar Chowdhury Lane, Bhawan, P-7, Kolkata-700 002 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaecb 9302 R] Kolkata-700 069 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Miraj D. Shah, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Supriyo Pal, Jcit, Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 07-11-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 08-01-2020 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)-16 Kolkata’S Order Dated 27.02.2017 Passed In Case No.755/Cit(A)-16/Kol/2015-16/W-7(4) Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

68 of the income tax Act as unexplained cash credit. The order is passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. ITA No.941/Kol/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 M/s Blue Lotus Designers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO Wd-7(4), Kol. Page 2 4 The AR has filed additional grounds of appeal. Same have been admitted. The crux of the grounds

MUNDHRA CONSTRUCTION P LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-10(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad, Accountant Member Shri Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member)

68 of the Act for which he placed I.T.A. No. 807/Kol/2024 Mundhra Construction Pvt. Ltd. reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) wherein it was held as under: "In this case the assessee had given the names and addresses of the alleged creditors

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

3), Kolkata, ITA No.1113/KOL/2024,\norder dated 17:03.2025\nv. Principal Commissioner of Income tax vs. Tripati Proteins (P) Ltd. (2024) 165\ntaxmann.com 175 (Gujarat)(14-06-2024)\nvi. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Hitesh Mody (HUF) [2024] 160\ntaxmann.com 110 (Bombay)/[2024] 298 Тахтап 162 (Bombay)(07-02-2024]\nvii. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-1 vs. SVD Resins

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

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

3) showed that the assessing officer, not being a court could rely upon material, which might not strictly be evidence admissible under the Indian Evidence Act for the purpose of making an order of assessment. Court often took judicial notice of certain facts which need not be proved before them. The plain reading of section 142 and 143 clearly

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

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

3) showed that the assessing officer, not being a court could rely upon material, which might not strictly be evidence admissible under the Indian Evidence Act for the purpose of making an order of assessment. Court often took judicial notice of certain facts which need not be proved before them. The plain reading of section 142 and 143 clearly

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VIGHNAHARTA VINCOM PRIVATE LIMITED, KARNATAKA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Vighnharta Vincom Private Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(1) Limited 5Th Floor, Room No. 5/12/2B, 94-G, Apartments No.1, 9 Th Cross Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, P-7, Road, Rajamahalvilas Extension Vs. Chowringhee Square, Sadashiva Nagar, Bangalore, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal Karnataka-560080, (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcv6413E Assessee By : Shri S.K. Pransukha, Ar Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Dung Dung, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.04.2026

3. The only issue raised by the assessee is against the order of ld. CIT (A) deleting the addition of ₹5,53,73,000/- as made by the ld. AO in respect of share capital/ share premium by treating the same as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 4. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed

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

3 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Garud Credit & Holding Pvt. Limited further examined the expenses claimed during the year and finally completed the assessment without making any addition on account of share capital received during the year but disallowed the expenses of Rs.1,00,750/- and assessed the income at Rs.1,17,690/-. 4. Subsequently ld. CIT called for the assessment

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

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

3) of die I. T. Act, 1961 at a Total Income of Rs. 1,54,60,070/- Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is initiated separately. Issue necessary forms, demand notice, penalty notice and copy of order to the assessee Give credit to prepaid taxes. Computation of tax is enclosed winch is an integral part

ITO, WARD 22(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. K.B. MEDICAL AGENCY, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1209,1210&1211/Kol/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years :2010-11 To 2012-13

Section 40A(3) of the Act. 4. The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.4,30,819/- on account of bogus purchases (A.Y. 2013-14) 5. The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 38,750/- on account of reconciled credit notes for goods returned. (A.Y. 2013-14) We note that cross objections

M/S. K.B. MEDICAL AGENCY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 22(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1209,1210&1211/Kol/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years :2010-11 To 2012-13

Section 40A(3) of the Act. 4. The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.4,30,819/- on account of bogus purchases (A.Y. 2013-14) 5. The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 38,750/- on account of reconciled credit notes for goods returned. (A.Y. 2013-14) We note that cross objections

M/S. K.B. MEDICAL AGENCY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 22(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1209,1210&1211/Kol/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years :2010-11 To 2012-13

Section 40A(3) of the Act. 4. The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.4,30,819/- on account of bogus purchases (A.Y. 2013-14) 5. The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 38,750/- on account of reconciled credit notes for goods returned. (A.Y. 2013-14) We note that cross objections