TRUE-MAN CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-7(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 68 of the Act to explain the nature and source, in other words, unable to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the share applicants and genuineness of the transaction. 8. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the paperbook and details has submitted that all the share applicant companies are duly registered with the Ministry

M/S WISLEY REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-11(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 55/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 M/S. Wisley Real Estate Pvt. Ltd.,…..........Appellant 86C, Viswakarma, 1St Floor, Topsia Road, Tiljala, Kolkata-700046 [Pan:Aakcs8704L] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……..........................Respondent Ward-11(3), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri A.K. Tulsyan, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 18Th March, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: June 6Th , 2024 O R D E R

section 68 of the Act for the alleged sum and assessed the income at Rs.1,76,57,500/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). It was submitted by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) that the main object of the assessee-company is Real estate developments in various fields. The promoters

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

68,02,948/- 63,810/ 30,654/- income - Gross Total 3,27,2661- 1,13,194/- 5,01,814/- 0 0 0 0 Income Total Income 3,27,2701- 1,13,1901 5.01,8101- 0 0 0 0 Income @ 98,181/- 33,958/- 1,50,543/- 0 0 0 0 normal rates Deemed total 0 1,13,194

ITO, WARD-8(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S MANINYA COMFIN PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 79/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(1), M/S. Maninya Comfin Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Vs 9, Lal Bazar Street Lal Bazar Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcm5088N] अपीलाथ"/ (Assessee ) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vinod Kr. Jain, A/R Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/07/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/08/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 26/09/2018 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Made U/S. 68 Of Rs. 7,96,16,343/- On Account Of Unexplained Cash Credit In The Form Of Share Capital With Premium. 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Kol., Is Erred In Deleting The Addition Without Considering The Facts That The Source Of Fresh Share Capital Amount Was Not Properly Explained By The Assessee During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings & The Director Of The Assessee Company Did Not Appear Against Summon U/S. 131 To Substantiate The Claim Of The Assessee With Documentary Evidences. 3. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A), Failed To Appreciate That When The Sums Are Credited In The Books Of Accounts

section 68 of the I.T.Act, 1961, squarely applicable in this case with the perception of the Double Entry System of Accountancy. 6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made u/s. 68 of Rs. 6,85,77,614/- on account of unexplained unsecured loan as the credibility

DEPUTY COMMISSOENR OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

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

68 to the tune of Rs. 18,27,00,000/- stands deleted. In the result the grounds are partly allowed.” 06. The ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by following the decision of the co-ordinate bench in case of M/s Swarna Kalash Commercial Pvt. ltd. Vs. ACIT in IT(SS)A No. 53/KOL/2022

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

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

68 to the tune of Rs. 18,27,00,000/- stands deleted. In the result the grounds are partly allowed.” 06. The ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by following the decision of the co-ordinate bench in case of M/s Swarna Kalash Commercial Pvt. ltd. Vs. ACIT in IT(SS)A No. 53/KOL/2022

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)- 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AUXINITE SUPPLIERS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Auxinite Suppliers Private Tax (Cc)-3(1) Limited 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan 44/2A Jain Tower, Hazra Road, Vs. Poorva, 110 Shantipally, Kolkata- Kolkata-700019, West Bengal 700017, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecb3974H Co No. 11/Kol/2025 (Arising In Ita No. 139/Kol/2025 For A.Y. 2019-20) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Auxinite Suppliers Private Tax (Cc)-3(1) Limited 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan 44/2A Jain Tower, Hazra Road, Vs. Poorva, 110 Shantipally, Kolkata- Kolkata-700019, West Bengal 700017, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri Rajeeva Kumar & Giridhar Dhelia, Ars Revenue By : Shri V. Vidhyadhar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.04.2026

68 of the Act particularly when the purchase of shares was not doubted in the earlier assessment years. The ld. CIT (A) relied on a series of decisions as extracted hereinabove while deleting the addition. The ld. CIT (A) noted that the shares were purchased by the assessee company during the financial year 2010-11 and have not been doubted

N C SHAW AND CO BEVERAGES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS CIRCLE 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

68,304 Schemes -Tie-Up 4,56,716 Secondary Scheme-Kind 5212 1,44,01,732 Secondary Scheme-Non Kind 5212 8,14,23,721 Grand Total 10,26,18,968 3. The above schemes are floated in the market and the incentives being offered to distributors/retailers depends upon the volume of sales made by them. The mechanism followed

N C SHAW AND CO BEVERAGES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RANGE-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

68,304 Schemes -Tie-Up 4,56,716 Secondary Scheme-Kind 5212 1,44,01,732 Secondary Scheme-Non Kind 5212 8,14,23,721 Grand Total 10,26,18,968 3. The above schemes are floated in the market and the incentives being offered to distributors/retailers depends upon the volume of sales made by them. The mechanism followed

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 I.T. Act provides for charging to Income Tax on any sum credited in the books of the assessee maintained for any previous year if the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory. It places no duty upon

QUEST ONLINE ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-49(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.1046/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Quest Online…………………………………...............................……….……Appellant Block-A, 3Rd Floor, Room No.24, 1, Chandni Chowk Street, Princep Street, Kolkata – 700072. [Pan:Aaafq4820G] Vs. Ito, Ward-49(1),Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate & Sunil Surana, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Datta, Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 02, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 03, 2024 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2020-21Against The Order Dated 08.09.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Only Issue Raised In The Various Grounds Of Appeals Is Against The Confirmation Of Addition By Cit(A) Of Rs.14,82,41,932/- As Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 68 Of The Act R.W.S. 115Bbe Of The Act. 3. The Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 09.01.2021 Declaring Total Income From Business & Profession At Rs.36,73,790/-. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Under Cass & Statutory Notices Were Duly Issued & Served Upon The Assessee. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Various Documents & Evidences Were Called For By The Assessing Officer From The Assessee

68 of the Act r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed return of income on 09.01.2021 declaring total income from business and profession at Rs.36,73,790/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and statutory notices were duly issued and served upon the assessee. During the assessment proceedings

M/S GAURISHANKAR BIHANI,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.-CIRCLE-34, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee on ground No

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

194-I read with section 204 comprised in Chapter XVII-B from the rent paid by the assessee to Kolkata Port Trust (KPT). This is because such rent was not to be included in the taxable total income of the KPT and was, therefore, not chargeable under the provisions of theAct. Therefore, considering the factual position

ITO, WARD-2(2), KOLKATA, ASANSOL vs. M/S. MAA TARA TRASNPORT CO., BURNPUR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year : 2010-11 Income Tax Officer V/S. M/S Maa Tara Transport Co. Ward-2(2), Parmer Radhanagar Road, P.O. Building, 54, G.T. Burnpur, Burdwan-713325 Road, Asansol-04 [Pan No.Aamfm 33326 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri B. Das, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Barsan Chatterjee, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 07-06-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 15-06-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Challenges Correctness Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Asansol’S Order Dated 22.09.2014, Passed In Case No.142/C.I.T.(A)/Asl/W-2(2)/Asl/13-14 Restricting Assessing Officer’S Action Disallowing Transport Charges Of₹60,68,502/- @12.5% Only Coming To This ₹7,58,562/-, In Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. Learned Departmental Representative Vehemently Contends During The Course Of Hearing That Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Restricting The Impugned Disallowance Vide Following Detailed Discussion:- “24. Ground 18 Is Against Disallowance Under Section 40A(Ia). The Assessing Officer Disallowed Entries Transportation Charge As Vouchers Were Not Produced & Tax Was Not Deducted Under Section 194-I. After Hearing A Notice Was Issued To Assessing Officer As Under:-

68,502/- made under section 40a(i) by Rs.7,58,562/- as a disallowance to absorb deficiency in books of account and vouchers. The ground is treated as partly allowed.” 3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to Revenue’s above sole argument. We notice first of all that Assessing Officer had invoked

ONE STOP COMMOSALE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-6(3), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 68 of the I.T. Act provides for charging to income tax on any sum credited in the books of the assessee maintained for any previous year if the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, it places no duty upon

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

SUPERDEAL RESOURCES PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 5(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Superdeal Resources Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Wad 5(1), Kolkata C/O Subash Agarwal & Ito, Ward 5(1), Associates, Advocates Sidha Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite Vs. Chowringhee Square, 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 Kolkata-70069 West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs7472E Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.09.2025

68 of the Act. 04. The ld. CIT (A) simply dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the assessee company has sold unlisted shares which were not invested in real companies and therefore, sale consideration realized during the year was apparently bogus in nature to provide accommodation entries only. The ld. CIT(A) also relied on the principle

PULAK SAMANTA,PURBA BARDHAMAN vs. ITO, WARD 2(3), , BURDWAN

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Am Shri Pulak Samanta Ito, Ward 2(3), Burdwan S/O Sushil Samanta, Kharga Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, Karanda, P.S. Memari, Dist. Kachari Road, Court Compound, Vs. Purba Bardhaman, Pin-713149 Burdwan-713101, West Bengal West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Benps8092A Assessee By : Shri Suvo Chakroborthy, Ar Revenue By : Shri Monalisha Pal Mukherjee, Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.11.2025

section 68 and ₹13,307 on account of undisclosed bank balance were sustained, holding that the assessee failed to substantiate the source of these credits with documentary evidence. 07. Aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. There is a delay of 194

DCIT,CIRCLE-15(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S L.G.W. LIMITED, NORTH 24 PARGANAS

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 Dcit, Circle-15(2), V/S. M/S L.G.W. Ltd., 10, Shantipally, Em Vill. Narayanpur, P.O. Bypass, Aayakar Rajarhat, Gopalpur, 24- Bhawan, Poorva, 6Th Parganas (North), West Floor, R.No.615, Bengal-700136 Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Aaacl 4670 N] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit- अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Dr Shri A.K. Tibrerwal, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 09-07-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 05-10-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Kolkata’S Order Dated 29.06.2016, Passed In Case No.47/Cit(A)-5/Cir.14(1)/15-16, In Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties Case File Perused. 2. The Revenue’S First Substantive Ground Challenges Correctness Of The Cit(A)’S Action Reversing Assessment Findings Disallowing The Taxpayer’S Commission Payments Made To Foreign Export Agents Amounting To ₹257,60,898/- For Non Deduction Of Tds U/S 40(A)(I) As Follows:- “1. Commission To Foreign Agents - Rs.2,57,60,898/- The Ao Has Added Sum Of Rs.2,57,60,898/- By Holding That The Said Amounts Were Paid To Foreign Agents Without Deduction Of Tds U/S.195. The Addition Has Been Made U/S

68,411/-‘ 3.1 In the current year the AO has made the same disallowance by apportioning the finance cost in accordance to Rule 8D2(ii). The facts are identical. I have no reason to take a different view in the current year. The Assessing Officer's action, therefore, cannot be sustained. The grounds 4 & 5 have to allowed except