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

Section 68, which provides that where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income

KAJAL KUMAR ROY,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD - 1(4), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M. Jagtap] I.T.A. No. 1568/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Kajal Kumar Roy.............................…………………………………………Appellant C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, “Seven Brothers”, Lodge, Buroshibtala, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 105 [Pan : Adgprs 8137 G] Income Tax Officer...................……………………………………………….......Respondent Ward 1(4), Hooghly Aayakar Bhawan, G.T. Road Khadina More, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 101 Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Satyajit Mondal, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 31, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 22, 2017 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 6, Kolkata Dated 20.04.2017 & The Solitary Issue Involved Therein Relates To The Addition Of Rs. 13,03,000/- Made By The A.O. & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit (A) On Account Of Loans Taken By The Assessee From Four Parties By Treating The Same As Unexplained Cash Credits Under Section 68. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual Who Is Engaged In The Business Of Trading Of Potatos. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed By Him On 25.09.2011 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 10,92,457/- Including Agricultural Income Of Rs.

section 68 of the Act. This is the settled position of law. In spite of the furnishing of various documents, the appellant cannot be said to have established the capacity of the creditors to lend. Further, it was held in the case of Sumati Dayal vs CIT (SC) 214 ITR 801 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that where

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

68 of the Act which action of AO has been rightly confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, he does not want us to interfere with the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A). 20. Having heard the rival submissions and after carefully going through the records and the case laws brought to our notice, we note that the assessee

PATTON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-1, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Patton International Principal Commissioner Of Ltd., C/O Jain Vinod K & Income-Tax, Kolkata-1. Associates, 41A, A. J. C. Vs Bose Road, Diamond . Prestige Nirman, 6Th Floor, Suite No.613, Kolkata- 700017 (Pan: Aabcp7901M) (Appellant) (Respondent)

197 of the Companies Act, 4 Patton International Ltd., AY 2017-18 2013 which appears to have been violated. On the third issue, Ld. Pr. CIT noted that the claim of double depreciation is to be verified from the income tax return. Accordingly, he held the assessment order dated 30.11.2019 passed by the AO as erroneous

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

D.C.I.T CIR - 11,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S EPCOS INDIA PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals as well as the cross objections are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

68,197/- in view of the amendment by the Finance Act, 2001 with effect from 01.04.2002 substituting the old Section

ADITYA ENTERPRISE,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-41(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2010-11 M/S Aditya Enterprise Ito Ward-41(1) बनाम 27, Mohan Lal Street, 18, Rabindra Sarani, / Kolkata-004 Podder Court, Kolkata- V/S. [Pan No.Aaofa 6657 K] 001 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 28-03-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 03-05-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata Dated 30.12.2015. Assessment Was Framed By Ito Ward-41(1), Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 22.03.2013 For Assessment Year 2010-11. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Per Its Appeal Are As Under:- “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.5,26,350/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Gross Profit, Which Was Wrongly Estimated @ 2% Of The Turnover. 2. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.2,75,000/- Made By The Ao In Respect Of Capital Introduction By Wrongly Invoking Section 68 Of The Act. 3. (A) For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of 33,87,197/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Alleged Non- Existent Sundry Creditors.

section 68 of the Act. 3. (a) For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of 33,87,197

INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ATTIRE ARTS PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY NISHANT OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

197 ITR 528(Ker), wherein it has been held that the burden of proof that there is debit owing to the assessee that it has been taxed in the earlier years, that the debit arose in the course of business of the assessee and finally, that it had become bade in the year o account, is all on the assessee

SUNIL AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shris.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Dr.A.L. Saini, Hon’Ble

section 68 of the Act which says- ‘where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLKATA vs. ALCOM INVESTMENT PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

68 of the Act cannot be applied in the hands of the investee company when the details of the shareholder investors are known.” 11. Keeping in view the documentary evidences furnished by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order with regard to merit of the case. Accordingly, we dismiss

M/S. CLIFF TREXIM PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

197 (Gau), where in this High Court while examining section 36 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, which is parimateria, held as under: 22 M/s. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Cliff TreximPvt. Ltd. M/s. Span Foundation Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2009-10 "The revisional authority for various good reasons may be inclined to view an assessment order

M/S. SPAN FOUNDATION PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

197 (Gau), where in this High Court while examining section 36 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, which is parimateria, held as under: 22 M/s. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Cliff TreximPvt. Ltd. M/s. Span Foundation Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2009-10 "The revisional authority for various good reasons may be inclined to view an assessment order

M/S. GARG BROTHERS PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

197 (Gau), where in this High Court while examining section 36 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, which is parimateria, held as under: 22 M/s. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Cliff TreximPvt. Ltd. M/s. Span Foundation Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2009-10 "The revisional authority for various good reasons may be inclined to view an assessment order

ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S BPO FINANCE AND INVESTMENTS PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.99/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata……..........................................................……Appellant Vs. M/S Bpo Finance & Investments Pvt. Ltd. .……........……..…..…..Respondent R No.54,5/1, Clive Row (2Nd Floor), Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aaccb5328F] Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 15, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 04, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 10.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Revenue Originally Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld, Cit(A) Was Justified In The Quashing The Addition Of Rs. 1,85,000,00/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Share Capital & Premium In The Course Assessment In Absence Of Identity Of The Creditors, Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of The Entire Transactions. 2. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld, Cit(A) Was Justified In The Quashing The Addition Of Rs. 1,85,00,000/-Made By The Assessing Officer Where No Personal Attendance Was Made By Any Director Of The Share Allottee Companies During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings & As Such Identity & Creditworthiness Of The Creditors & Genuineness Of Transactions Could Not Be Verified.

68 of the Act. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. Rs. 13,56,097/- u/s. 14A of the Act, denying the findings of the Assessing Officer. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(Appeals) failed to appreciate the facts

ECONOMIC MEDICAL STORES ,HOOGHLY vs. JCIT, RANGE - 1, HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, V.P & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.118/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Economic Medical Stores Vs. Jcit, Range-I, Hooghly 23/1, Panchanantala Street, P.O & P.S. Rishra, Dist: Hooghly, Pin- 712101. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaafe8315Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

197 of the Act. Learned authorized representative’s case accordingly is that since the impugned TDS deduction required involves a very miniscule percentage, both the learned lower authorities have erred in invoking the impugned disallowance on the entire sales commission of Rs.33,89,205/-. 4. The Revenue strongly supports both the lower authorities’ action in making impugned disallowance

MECLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act.

68,81,145/- u/s 37 of the Act. 7.2 We have considered the rival submissions and have also gone through the orders of Ld. AO and Ld. DRP in this regard. We find that the Ld. DRP has given the following directions: “The AO is accordingly directed to allow the said expenditure after due verification that the membership

MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: the due date of filing of return under Section 139(1) of the Act.

68,81,145/- u/s 37 of the Act. 7.2 We have considered the rival submissions and have also gone through the orders of Ld. AO and Ld. DRP in this regard. We find that the Ld. DRP has given the following directions: “The AO is accordingly directed to allow the said expenditure after due verification that the membership

ACIT-CIR. 1, DURGAPUR vs. DUTTA AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD., DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.189/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Circle-1, Durgapur.....................…..................….…............…..….. Appellant Vs. Dutta Automobiles Pvt. Ltd............................................…..............……. Respondent Nachan Road, Benachity, Durgapur-713213. [Pan: Aaccd5008Q] Appearances By: Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 28, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 07, 2022 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Durgapur [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 68 in the facts of the case had no applicability. The question is, thus, answered in favour of the assessee. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.” 4. Therefore, the issue is squarely covered by the jurisdictional High Court in the own case of the assessee. There is no merit in these grounds of the appeal of the assessee