M/S PREMIER IRRIGATION ADRITEC (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

220(2) of the Act for delayed payment of taxes was not allowable as deduction in computation of the total income. 10. In our view whenever interest is charged under the Act, whether for delayed payment of tax or filing under estimate of tax or for non- submission of the estimate or return or for default in filing return within

ABC INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Abc India Limited Dcit, Circle 11(1) 40/8, Ballygunj, Circular Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Chowringhee Kolkata, West Bengal-700019 Square, Kolkata-700069 Vs. West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacca2035J Assessee By : Shri S.K. Pransukhka, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.04.2026

220 Visakhapatnam land. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the action of AG of denying cost of acquisition of Rs 89,04,600/-as on 1.4.2001 and also denying the cost of improvement of Rs 68,48,232/- in respect of Jagi Road Land. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the action of treating gross rent

M/S SUNCITY NIKETAN PVT.LTD.,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.2101/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Suncity Niketan Pvt. Ltd………………....….......…....………....Appellant 5, Clive Row, Kolkata -1. [Pan: Aapcs4157E] Vs. Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata......................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 07, 2025 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.12.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.17,99,28,555/- Made By The Assessing Officer By Treating Credits In The Account Of The Assessee As Income Of The Assessee From Unexplained Sources. The Assessee Apart From Challenging The Validity Of The Additions Made/Confirmed By The Lower Authorities On Merits, Has Also Contested The Very Validity Of The Reopening Of The Assessment Order As Well As The Validity Of The Assessment Order For Want Of Issue Of Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act.

68 on account of sale of assets/investment acquired during earlier years (a copy of the said judgement is enclosed for your ready reference. Precisely, we submit that- i. The reasons recorded by you are vague, scanty and ambiguous and do not show any live link between the reasons and the alleged escapement of income. I.T.A. No.2101/Kol/2024 Assessment Year

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

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

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-49(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S VISWAKARMA RESIDENCY, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. M.L.Meenaआयकर अपील सं.य/ Assessment Years:2016-17 बनाम / Acit, Cir-49(1), Kolkata M/S. Viswakarma Residency Uttarpan Complex, Ds-Iv, V/S. 2Nd Fl., Manicktala Civick Centre, Block-2 & 3, 2Nd Fl., Kolkata-700 054. Pan: Aaifv3279Q अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent .. Hearing Through Video Conferencing अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Manish Kanojia, Cit, Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri S.M Surana, Advocate, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-08-2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26-10-2021

2,077,101 0.28 Vinimay Pvt. Ltd Sthavistha 4,089,050 485,531,649 489,620,699 - 0.00 Mercantiles Pvt.Ltd Singrodia 28,469,620 699,588,717 728,058,337 50,819 0.01 The issue of creditworthiness with respect to the net worth has been accepted by the Hon’ble ITAT in several cases. Reference is made to the decision

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

220 CTR 622, held that neither the provision of 68 nor on general principle, it can be said that once the existence of Loan Creditors are proved and such loan creditors own such credits with the assessee, there is no reason to disbelieve the transaction. It has been held by various Courts that where lender is assessed

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

220 CTR 622, held that neither the provision of 68 nor on general principle, it can be said that once the existence of Loan Creditors are proved and such loan creditors own such credits with the assessee, there is no reason to disbelieve the transaction. It has been held by various Courts that where lender is assessed

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

2. CIT vs. Nivun Builders & Developers (p) Ltd (350 ITR 407):- where Hori'ble High Court held that where assessee failed to prove identity and capacity of subscriber companies to pay share application money, amount so received was liable to be taxed under section 68. 3. CIT vs. Nova Promoters & Finlease (D) Ltd.(342 ITR 169):- Wherein

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

2. CIT vs. Nivun Builders & Developers (p) Ltd (350 ITR 407):- where Hori'ble High Court held that where assessee failed to prove identity and capacity of subscriber companies to pay share application money, amount so received was liable to be taxed under section 68. 3. CIT vs. Nova Promoters & Finlease (D) Ltd.(342 ITR 169):- Wherein

GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH GIFFORD LLP),KOLKATA vs. DDIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

220 (Kar) wherein the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court relying on the decision in the case of Ishikawajma Harima (supra) held that the Explanation incorporated in Section 9 (By Finance Act, 2010) suggests that criterion of residence, place of business or business connection in India has been done away with for fastening the tax liability, but the criteria

GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH GIFFORD LLP),KOLKATA vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

220 (Kar) wherein the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court relying on the decision in the case of Ishikawajma Harima (supra) held that the Explanation incorporated in Section 9 (By Finance Act, 2010) suggests that criterion of residence, place of business or business connection in India has been done away with for fastening the tax liability, but the criteria

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

ACIT, CC-3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SNOWTEX INVESTMENT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.) Asstt. Year : 2012-13 A.C.I.T, Cc-3(2), Kolkata Vs M/S. Snowtex Investment Ltd. Pan: Aaecs 0334C (Assessee/Department) (Respondent/Assessee)

68,635/- made on account of sale promotion expenses without considering the recent order of the A.O. M/s. Snowtex Investment Ltd 2 10 The Ld. CIT(Appeals)-21/Kolkata erred in law as well as on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 3,86,08,000/- made on account of salary expenses, ignoring the recent order

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

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

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

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 is also