DIPAK KUMAR DASBHOWMIK,PASCHIM MIDNAPORE vs. I.T.O., WARD - 38(1), MIDNAPORE , PASCHIM MIDNAPORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

189 ITR 285 wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the word 'reason' in the phrase 'reason to believe' will mean cause or justification, and, if the AO had cause or justification to know or suppose that income has escaped assessment, he can be said to have reason to believe that an income has escaped assessment

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

189 Commodities 3 Pvt. Ltd. 5 Sthirlakshmi 35,00,000 227 216 210 21 211 240 232 233 Mercantile 3 Pvt. Ltd. 6 Badal 45,00,000 261 263 258 26 259 280 275 275 Commotrade 2 A Pvt. Ltd. Page 7 of 21 I.T.A. No.: 1088/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 SDR Meghnath Investments Private Limited. 7 Vanraj

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 68 of the Act are\nnot applicable to the sale of investment made by the assessee in the\nimpugned assessment year. In defense of his argument the Id. AR\nrelied on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of in\nthe case of PCIT Vs. Tulsyan and Sons (P.) Ltd.ITAT/239/2024 in IA\nNo.GA/2/2024order

NEHA DIWAN,HINDMOTOR vs. ITO WARD - 23(1), HOOGHLY

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961. 17. That the appellant craves leave to adduce additional grounds and/or amend or withdraw any of the aforesaid grounds before or at the time of hearing of appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that as per the information available with the Income Tax Department, the assessee

M/S MODERN MALLEABLES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 3(1) (o) of the SICA Act vide its order dt. 28-03-2001 (page 4-5 of the P/B). When the proceedings was going on in the BIFR, the company closed down one of its plant/unit since there was lack of adequate fund/capital. It is noted that in between the year 1999 and 2007 several schemes

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

BMW INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

68 of the Act is reduced from the total income then there was no difference between the returned income and assessed income and the tax sought to be evaded would be nil. Thus, the penalty is not leviable under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by virtue of Explanation 4 to Section

BMW INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

68 of the Act is reduced\nfrom the total income then there was no difference between the\nreturned income and assessed income and the tax sought to be\nevaded would be nil. Thus, the penalty is not leviable under section\n271(1)(c) of the Act by virtue of Explanation 4 to Section 271(1)(c) of\nthe

ITO,WARD-9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ACYTELENE TREXIM (P) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2009-10

68,025.20 and sales at ₹3,61,38,633.41. After considering the submission of assessee and other relevant records Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition made by AO by observing as under:- “I have carefully considered the submission of the appellant including the judgment of the referred case laws and the relevant Provisions of SCRA, 1956, perused the facts

DY. CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. FEMINA STOCK MANAGEMENT COMPANY LTD, KOLKATA

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 850/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Cit Central Circle – 1(4), Kolkata Femina Stock Management Company Vs Ltd. 5Th Floor, Room No. 2 P23/24, Radha Bazar Street Tea Board Kolkata - 700001 [Pan: Aaacf3689H] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/10/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/12/2023 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 – 21, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 12/05/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 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:-

section 68 of the Act, for the impugned transactions in relation to the particular company present on those premises. These documents have already been elaborately listed earlier in this order, and included the PAN Card, IT acknowledgement, audited balance sheets and so on. It was also pointed out in the 1st remand report that the inspector did not find

M/S. LINDE INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY BOC INDIA LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RANGE - 12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 224/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 M/S. Linde India Limited,..........................Appellant (Formerly Boc India Limited) ‘Oxygen House’, P-43, Taratala Road, Kolkata-700088 [Pan: Aaacb2528H] -Vs.- Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax,..........Respondent Range-12, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel & Shri P. Jhunjhunwala, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 28, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 07, 2023 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz):- The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.11.2015 Passed Under Section 144C(5) Read With Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act.

189/- in respect of international transactions of sale of fixed assets. We take both these transactions in a seriatim. 6. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company is a part of the Linde AG Group (It was earlier part of the BOC Group of UK, which has merged with the Linde AG Group). It is a subsidiary

BMW INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

68 of the Act is reduced from the total income then there was no difference between the returned income and assessed income and the tax sought to be evaded would be nil. Thus, the penalty is not leviable under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by virtue of Explanation 4 to Section

M/S. KRISHNA TISSUES PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 2215/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S Krishna Tissues Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Cc-3(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aacck 5813 G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 68 of the Act as unexplained income in the hands of the appellant in spite of the fact that source of share application money received from the share applicants was also established with evidence and the addition was on the basis of suspicion and misnomer only. 8. That the Ld. CIT(A) while upholding the addition u/s 68

ITO, WARD - 3(2), PURULIA, PURULIA vs. M/S BIRGIRI C.S. SHOP, PURULIA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 794/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward-3(2), Purulia -Vs- M/S Birgiri C.S. Shop [Pan: Aaffb 8532 P ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,83,044/- in the assessment. This disallowance was deleted by the ld CITA in first appeal. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us. 4. We have heard the rival submissions. We find that the issue under dispute is covered by the order of this tribunal in the case of Ramnagar Pachai & C.S. Shop

PODDAR REALTORS PVT. LTD.,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), BURDWAN, BURDWAN

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 265/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Poddar Realtors Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), 1, Parkus Road, Burdwan Vs Burdwan Pin- 713101 [Pan : Aagcp2937G] अपीलाथ"/ (Assessee ) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Fca Revenue By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 07/02/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dt. 27/09/2021. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Addition Of Rs.25,00,000/- Made U/S 68 Was Factually As Well As Legally Unsustainable & Therefore The Same Deserves To Be Deleted. 2. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Authorities Below Were Unjustified-In Not Appreciating That The Assessee Had Duly Discharged Its Onus Of Establishing The Identity, Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of The Loan Creditor & In That View Of The Matter The Addition Of Rs. 25,00,000/- Made By Way Of Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 Was Untenable On Facts & In Law.

3. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, firstly objected to the inaction of the AO to provide the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment which according to him was sina qua non to assume jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act. He thus urged that on this ground alone, the impugned order

ITO, WD-9(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S GOLDSTAR TRACOM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Madhumita Roy) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2), Kolkata...........................................................…..…….………..Appellant M/S. Goldstar Tracom Pvt. Ltd…..………………………………………..……………...…….…............Respondent 4, Synagougue Street Burrabazar Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan: Aadcg 8045 K] Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 12Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 9Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

189/- & Sales of Rs. 7,41,11,200/-) as per Profit & Loss A/c placed at page 182 of paper book. There is no allegation of AO that deposit of cash in bank accounts of share subscribers. The details of source of funds from which this company had made the share application was also explained in respective reply filed

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

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

3. Persistent System Limited (a) Functionally not comparable – Persistent systems is engaged in provision of outsourced product development services for independent software vendors and enterprises, which is different in nature from IT services. The company derives income from both software services & products. (b) Segmental information not available – P&L shows income from “sale of software services & Products. However, no break