DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. LAL BABA SEAMLESS TUBES PVT. LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes, while the appeal of the Revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section 68 for the following reasons given in his impugned order:- “On careful consideration of the contentions of the A/R of the appellant, it is Inferred therefrom that, firstly, an objection was raised regarding non-appearance of the directors of all the 13 companies before the A.O in response to summons issued u/s 131 of the I.T. Act that

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

M/S. BARDHAMAN DHARMARAJ PAPER MILL PVT. LTD.,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BURDWAN

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year : 2015-16

section 56(viib) has been introduced." As another important aspect which should also be borne in mind in this case. These shares were received after paying huge premium by the allottees. These were subsequently transferred at face value or even at discount. This means that on transfer of shares the allotee did not receive any premium. This means that

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BURDWAN, BURDWAN vs. M/S. BARDHAMAN DHARMARAJ PAPER MILL PVT. LTD., BURDWAN

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year : 2015-16

section 56(viib) has been introduced." As another important aspect which should also be borne in mind in this case. These shares were received after paying huge premium by the allottees. These were subsequently transferred at face value or even at discount. This means that on transfer of shares the allotee did not receive any premium. This means that

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 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 (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

SAMRAT FINVESTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENT. CIR. 4(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

198 (Madras)/[2015] 229 Taxman 58 (Madras) vide order dated 12-08-2014. 011. The ld. AR also submitted that the assessee company has proved the source of funds of the subscribers and the theory of investigating the source to source is not applicable to the instant A.Y. 2012-13. The ld. AR submitted the provision of Section 68

SAMRAT FINVESTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENT. CIR. 4(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

198 (Madras)/[2015] 229 Taxman 58 (Madras) vide order dated 12-08-2014. 011. The ld. AR also submitted that the assessee company has proved the source of funds of the subscribers and the theory of investigating the source to source is not applicable to the instant A.Y. 2012-13. The ld. AR submitted the provision of Section 68

SAMRAT FINVESTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENT. CIR. 4(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

198 (Madras)/[2015] 229 Taxman 58 (Madras) vide order dated 12-08-2014. 011. The ld. AR also submitted that the assessee company has proved the source of funds of the subscribers and the theory of investigating the source to source is not applicable to the instant A.Y. 2012-13. The ld. AR submitted the provision of Section 68

SAMRAT FINVESTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 5(2) (NOW DCIT, CENT.CIR. 4(2)), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

198 (Madras)/[2015] 229 Taxman 58 (Madras) vide order dated 12-08-2014. 011. The ld. AR also submitted that the assessee company has proved the source of funds of the subscribers and the theory of investigating the source to source is not applicable to the instant A.Y. 2012-13. The ld. AR submitted the provision of Section 68

ENKAY TRAFFIN (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 133(6) ng the notice under section 133(6) of the Act. (vi) We note from a perusal of the paper book pages (vi) We note from a perusal of the paper book pages-2, 160 to 184 the 2, 160 to 184 the details of share applicant details of share applicant M/s. Shivashiv Dealcom

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

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

section 68 is not sustainable. The assessee has drew the attention of the ld. CIT(Appeals) towards the material submitted by it. A paper book running into 202 pages containing the material filed before the authorities below has been filed before us. For making reference about the nature of material, we would deem it appropriate to take note

NEXTGEN VYAPAAR ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 133(6) of the Act. section 133(6) of the Act. (v) We note from a perusal of the paper book (v) We note from a perusal of the paper book-2, pages 138 to 159 the 2, pages 138 to 159 the details of share applicant details of share applicant M/s. Shivarshi Construction

I.T.O.,WARD-40(4), KOLKATA vs. SMT.PUSHPA DEVI RATHI, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

198/- and after reducing the disclosed sale of Rs. 5,96,69,131/- ,treated the balance as excess deposits in the bank accounts which remained unexplained due to non-production of books of accounts. 5. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee in respect of Rs. 1,49,30,067/- by reducing

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

WINNER TRADECOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2189/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Winner Tradecom Pvt. Limited,……..…………Appellant 2/6, Sarat Bose Road, Suite-308, Central Plaza, Kolkata-700020 [Pan:Aabcw0321N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer, ……………………………...Respondent Assessment Unit, Ward-6(2), Income Tax Department, Nfac, Delhi Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsian, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 30, 2024 O R D E R

section 68 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved with the order of ld. Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). After considering 2 Winner Tradecom Pvt. Limited the submissions of the assessee, the ld. CIT(Appeals) also confirmed the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal

ADITI MITRA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 37(3), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 25/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Aditi Mitra,…………………………………...……Appellant Flat No. 401, Block No. 12, Ujaas, The Condoville, 69, S.K. Deb Road, Kolkata-700048, West Bengal [Pan:Aczpb6415H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………....Respondent Ward-37(3), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001

68,173/-taxes thereon and certificate also issued by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax accepting disclosure without considering section 188 of Income Disclosure Scheme (IDS) 2016.Thus non consideration or omission invalidates whole of the proceedings. Thus, assessment order, liable to be quashed. Tax effect - Rs.6,82,317/- (7) That on the facts and circumstances of the case