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

LAL BABA SEAMLESS TUBES (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, 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

ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S VISHNU DISTRIBUTORS PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is devoid of any merit, hence dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 50/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-2013

section 68 in the context of the facts of the case. The assessing officer issued notices u/s 133(6) 14 share subscribers, calling for certain evidences, among which were: (i)copy of share application Form and also copy of share allotment letter. (ii)details of shares that have been allotted with distinctive nos. of shares. (iii)name address

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 68. 4. CIT vs. Ultra Modern Exports (D) Ltd. (220 taxman 165):- Where Hon'ble Delhi High Court

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 68. 4. CIT vs. Ultra Modern Exports (D) Ltd. (220 taxman 165):- Where Hon'ble Delhi High Court

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AVIMA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

220 CTR 138′, held that “In view of what has been stated hereinabove we are of the view that this explanation seems to be more convincing, has not been considered by the authorities below and additions were made and/or confirmed merely on the basis of statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act. Despite the fact 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 of the Act on account of bogus unsecured loans despite the assessee failing to establish the genuineness of the transactions and the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors? 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law by allowing the appeal of the assessee by deleting the disallowance of Rs. 40,44,375/- under section

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 of the Act on account of bogus unsecured loans despite the assessee failing to establish the genuineness of the transactions and the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors? 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law by allowing the appeal of the assessee by deleting the disallowance of Rs. 40,44,375/- under section

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.

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961. Consequently, the question is answered in the negative. The decision of the Tribunal is correct in law” 34. Further, in the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. [2012] 19 taxmann.com 26/206 Taxman 254/[2014] 361 ITR 220

M/S SAKET DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-2(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

Section 68 of the Act requiring the assesee to explain the source of source was I.T.A. No. 683/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Saket Developers Private Ltd. 4 not applicable for Assessment Year 2012-13 and assessee has furnished complete details to explain the source of alleged sum and, therefore, no addition is called

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

BEEKAY STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Beekay Steel Industries Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), C/O Subash Agarwal & Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, Associates, Advocates, Siddha 110, Shantipally, Vs. Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite Kolkata-700107, West Bengal 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcb3205A Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2025

section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued by the A.O and finally assessment was completed by passing the order u/s 143(3) on 30.03.2015 assessing the total income at Rs 41,52,13,220/- by adding the share capital raised by the assessee during the relevant year amounting to Rs 17,00,00,000/- and also adding

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLKATA vs. NEPAL KUMAR, HOWRAH

In the result, appeal is “Allowed”

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 1130/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer Nepal Kumar 3No. Government Place, Vs Stash, Gip Colony, (West) Kolkata-700001, Jagacha, Howrah-711112, West Bengal Kolkata [Pan : Ainpk9169M] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent)

68 read with section 115BBE of the Act made addition of ₹1,59,99,220/- and assessed income at ₹1,64,77,880/-. 04. Aggrieved

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MAA AMBA TOWERS LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2012-13

Section 68 was applicable because admittedly the assessee had failed to bring on record any material to dislodge the factual findings of the AO which were based on the confessions of the share applicants. 4.10 In the appellant's case save & except relying on the fact that notices u/s 131 were either unserved or remained un- complied

DEBRAJ SAHOO,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 44, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

220/-. The case of the appellant was selected for scrutiny and the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ld. 'AO') observed that appellant deposited cash of Rs. 32,42,500/- in his State Bank of India Bank account and Rs. 7,10,500/- in his Yes Bank account during the demonetization period. The ld. AO asked for the documentary evidences

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

ADVENT VINIMAY PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-9(1), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos. 220 & 221/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2012-2013 & 2014-2015 Advent Vinimay Private Limited,………..….Appellant 207, Maharishi Devendra Road, Burrabazar, Kolkata-700007 [Pan:Aaica3094K] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…….…………………….…Respondent Ward-9(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, D.R. & Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

220 & 221/KOL/2023 Assessment Years: 2012-2013 & 2014-2015 Advent Vinimay Private Limited,………..….Appellant 207, Maharishi Devendra Road, Burrabazar, Kolkata-700007 [PAN:AAICA3094K] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…….…………………….…Respondent Ward-9(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances by: N o n e, appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D.R. and Shri P.P. Barman

ADVENT VINIMAY PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-9(1), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos. 220 & 221/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2012-2013 & 2014-2015 Advent Vinimay Private Limited,………..….Appellant 207, Maharishi Devendra Road, Burrabazar, Kolkata-700007 [Pan:Aaica3094K] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…….…………………….…Respondent Ward-9(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, D.R. & Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

220 & 221/KOL/2023 Assessment Years: 2012-2013 & 2014-2015 Advent Vinimay Private Limited,………..….Appellant 207, Maharishi Devendra Road, Burrabazar, Kolkata-700007 [PAN:AAICA3094K] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…….…………………….…Respondent Ward-9(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances by: N o n e, appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D.R. and Shri P.P. Barman