MSTC LTD,KOLKATA vs. JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, CIR-1(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2021-22

234A, 234B and Section 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on disputed additions and levying interest of Rs. 1,90,68,525/-, Rs. 13,34,79,675/- and Rs. 3

ANCHITA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. P.C.I.T., KOLKATA - 2, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 637/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-12(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 & I.T.A. No. 1067/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Pcit, Kolkata-2, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

68 in a re-assessment order passed under section 147 of the Income Tax Act. (c) The revenue authorities have erred in charging interests under sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act. 3

ANCHITA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-12(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 637/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-12(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 & I.T.A. No. 1067/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Pcit, Kolkata-2, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

68 in a re-assessment order passed under section 147 of the Income Tax Act. (c) The revenue authorities have erred in charging interests under sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act. 3

M/S. RADISON PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 8(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 11/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Radison Projects Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 8(3), 21, Camac Street Vs Kolkata Happy House Kolkata - 700016 [Pan : Aafcr7565P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate & Shri Pranabesh Sarkar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/03/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Is The Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 14/12/2022 For The Assessment Year 2012-13, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Ld. C.I.T. (A) On 14.12.2022 Which Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal. 2. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.1,37,00,000/- Made By The A.O. On Account Of Share Application Money With Share Premium By Wrongly Treating The Same As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 Which Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal. 3. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Considered That The Assessee Company Had Discharged Its Onus By Furnishing All The Relevant Documents In Connection With The Share Capital Raised & Also

234A & 234B amounting to Rs. 503,844/- & 16,01,532/- respectively which are mechanically wrong and illegal. 7. For that the appellant reserves the right to adduce any further ground or grounds, if necessary, at or before the hearing of the appeal.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company. Income of Rs.667

MANAS KUMAR NAGURI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XIII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 68 of the Act and has also rightly applied the combined peak credit theory after considering all the entries in the undisclosed bank accounts. The reliance is placed on the decision in the case of ITO, Ward 36(4), Kolkata vs. Uday Shankar Mahawar, ITA No.1903/KoI/2009, CIT vs. Praveen Kumar Agarwal, IT (SS) A No.61 & 74/Ko1/2003

NEHA DIWAN,HINDMOTOR vs. ITO WARD - 23(1), HOOGHLY

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

234A and 234B of the Act which is not chargeable and/or excessively charged. I.T.A. No.: 630/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Neha Diwan. 15. That the Ld. Assessing Officer arbitrarily initiated penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961. 16. That the Ld. Assessing Officer arbitrarily initiated penalty proceeding under section

WISE ENCLAVES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD 6(4),KOL., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm& Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 323/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Wise Enclaves Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- I.T.O., Ward-6(4), Kolkata Kolkata. [Pan: Aaacw 7665 A] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Miraj D.Shah, Ar For The Respondent : Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl.Cit

68,00,000/- which was later enhanced to Rs 3,69,01,543/- by the ld CITA . We note that the ld CIT invoked the revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and found that the assessee company in its Balance Sheet has shown to have infused equity share capital of Rs 3,69,01,543/- at a premium

MANISH KUMAR BAID,KOLKATA vs. ACIT CIRCLE 35, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1236/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Manish Kumar Baid -Vs- Acit, Cir-35, Kolkata [Pan: Ahmpb 3024 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1237/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mahendra Kumar Baid -Vs- Acit, Cir-35, Kolkata [Pan: Aejpb 7691 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

3 raised hereinabove is decided in the negative and held in favour of the assessee. 9. The next common issue is against charging of Interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. The Charging of Interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C are mandatory and in any case is only consequential in nature. The ld AO is directed

MAHENDRA KUMAR BAID,KOLKATA vs. ACIT CIRCLE 35, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1236/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Manish Kumar Baid -Vs- Acit, Cir-35, Kolkata [Pan: Ahmpb 3024 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1237/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mahendra Kumar Baid -Vs- Acit, Cir-35, Kolkata [Pan: Aejpb 7691 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

3 raised hereinabove is decided in the negative and held in favour of the assessee. 9. The next common issue is against charging of Interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. The Charging of Interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C are mandatory and in any case is only consequential in nature. The ld AO is directed

SMS MACHINES PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 16/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sms Machines Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(4), 9, Ganesh Chandra Avenue Vs Kolkata Fiddley Chambers Suit No. 6 3Rd Floor Kolkata - 700013 [Pan : Aalcs8132R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/10/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 1, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 27/08/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing Ex-Parte Order Without Providing Any Opportunity To The Appellant. As Such, The Order Of The Ld. Cit (A) Is Liable To Be Set Aside. 2. That In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Assessing Officer Has Erred In Making Additions Of Rs. 1,86,58,000/- As Unexplained Cash Credit Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of A.O. & Passing Ex-Parte Order Without Allowing Proper Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Appellant.

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of A.O. and passing ex-parte order without allowing proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2 I.T.A. No. 16/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 SMS Machines Pvt. Ltd. 3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Assessing Officer

HIMADRI VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, (OSD), WARD-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

68 of the Act. 11. 14.06.2018 Copy of the appeal filed by the assessee was received in the office of the Id. Ld. Assessing Officer on 14.06.2018. 12. 29.01.2019 Notice under section 154 issued by the Ld. ACIT(OSD), Ward-(i), Kolkata for the mistake in not levying interest under section 234A of the Act and proposing

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

234A of the Act. 10. Interest under section 234B 10.1 The Learned AO erred in levying interest of Rs. 39,96,22,576 under section 234B of the Act. 11. Interest under section 234D 11.1. The Learned AO erred in levying interest of Rs. 1,61,67,498 under section 234D of the Act. 12. Interest

M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

234A of the Act. 10. Interest under section 234B 10.1 The Learned AO erred in levying interest of Rs. 39,96,22,576 under section 234B of the Act. 11. Interest under section 234D 11.1. The Learned AO erred in levying interest of Rs. 1,61,67,498 under section 234D of the Act. 12. Interest

M/S JAI RAJ ISPAT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

3) has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken u/s 147 after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of failure on the part of the assessee inter alia to disclose fully and truly

BIDYUT PRAKAS BHATTACHARYA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 52(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

234A amounting to Rs. 38,394 is liable to be summarily rejected. 3. Impugned levying interest under section 234B amounting to Rs. 1,72,773. The Learned Deputy Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru, has passed the order under section 154 in ignoring the foreign tax credit amounting to Rs 6,39,970 resulting into

HARI RAM AGARWAL ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 22(4) , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey & Shri M. Balaganeshi.T.A. No.2363/Kol/2018 (Assessment Year 2014-15) Hari Ram Agarwal Ito, Ward-22(4), Kolkata. -Vs- [Pan :Acdpa 1946 N]

234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 3. The brief facts of this issue are that the assessee claimed long term capital gains from transactions in shares of Kailash Auto Finance Limited (KAFL). The assessee on 1.3.2012 purchased 50000 shares of the face value of Rs.1 each in Careful Projects Advisory Limited (CPAL) through off market from M/s. Needful Vincom

SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm It(Ss)A No. 50/Kol/2025 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Sanjay Kumar Gupta Jamuria Hat, Jamuria Thana Acit, Cc 2(1) More, Bypass Road, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Vs. Jamurai, Burdwan, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal West Bengal-713336 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aczpg4735H Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan & Ms. Sonam Bajoria, Ars Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.11.2025

68, 69, 694. 698. 69C and 69D. provisions of section 115BBE were not attracted" vi. Accordingly, we direct the ld. AO to apply normal rate of tax as applicable to the business/ other source of income. Needless to state that the income assessed in A.Y. 2020-21 shall be excluded from ITA Nos. 50 &791/KOL/2025 Sanjay Kumar Gupta; A.Ys

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. PHPL PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

section 3.1 of CBDT circular no. 5/2024 dated 15/03/2024, falling under the category of cases involving organized tax evasion including cases of bogus capital gain/loss through penny stocks and cases of accommodation entries. 4. The department craves the right to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. Brief facts

NEELAM DUGAR ,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD - 35(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 1530/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Neelam Dugar,......................................Appellant 75, Bbd Road, Eliza 3, 4Th Floor, Hindmotor, Hooghly-712233 [Pan: Ahhpd6956A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,...............................Respondent Ward-35(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 7Th Floor, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 Appearances By: Shri A.N. Keshri, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 09, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 19, 2023 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz):- The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata Dated 18.04.2018 Passed For A.Y. 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Five Grounds Of Appeal. In Ground No. 1, She Has Submitted That Ld. Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.69,57,000/-, Which Was Added By The Ld. Assessing Officer Under Section 1 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Neelam Dugar 68 Of The Income Tax Act. In Ground No. 2, She Has Pleaded That Ld. Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.1,66,794/- & In Ground No. 3, The Assessee Has Challenged Charging Of Interest Under Section 234A & 234B Of The Income Tax Act. In Grounds No. 4 & 5, The Assessee Has Raised Supporting Argument Qua Earlier Three Grounds Of Appeal.

68 of the Income Tax Act. In Ground No. 2, she has pleaded that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,66,794/- and in Ground No. 3, the assessee has challenged charging of interest under section 234A