M/S WISLEY REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-11(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 55/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 M/S. Wisley Real Estate Pvt. Ltd.,…..........Appellant 86C, Viswakarma, 1St Floor, Topsia Road, Tiljala, Kolkata-700046 [Pan:Aakcs8704L] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……..........................Respondent Ward-11(3), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri A.K. Tulsyan, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 18Th March, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: June 6Th , 2024 O R D E R

68 of the Act and allow Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee. 13. Ground No. 2 regarding charging of interest under section 234B

M/S KRISHILAKSHMI RICE MILL PVT. LTD.,BURDWAN vs. I.T.O.,WARD-1(2), BURDWAN

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. 605/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Krishilakshmi Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward - Vill.- Hatgobindapur Vs 1(2), Kolkata Dist.- Burdwan Pincode - 713407 [Pan : Aaeck1877C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Is The Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - Burdwan (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 25/01/2019 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 25.01.2019 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.207,00,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer 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 Proved The Identity, Creditworthiness Of The Share Application And

234B amounting to Rs. 24,17,796/- which is mechanically wrong and illegal. 6. 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.15,800/- declared

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

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/- declared

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

ANJANA CHAUDHURY,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT, CIR. (1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

section 234.A and 234B of the Act and/or the calculation of tax and interest thereon is incorrect. 7. That the appellant humbly craves leave to add. alter, withdraw grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” 2. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out some facts which were placed before the ld. CIT(A) also

HALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 12(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

234B and 234C and allow Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2007-08. 30. As regards Grounds No. 3 & 4 of the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2007- 08, it is observed that the issue involved therein relating to the assessee’s claim for deduction on account of deferred revenue expenditure is similar

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

section 68 therefore, is not sustainable and stands deleted. However, following the decision of the Hon. Jurisdictional Kolkata Tribunal in the case of M/s SwarnaKalash Commercial Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Kolkata for AY: 2019-20 in I.T.(SS)A. No.53/Kol/2022 when the assessee had held these shares for past several years and subsequently sold them

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

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

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

ITO WD-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SAPPHIRE GLOBAL FINANCE (P) LTD, KOLKATA

234B of the Income-tax Act"], "issues": "Whether the addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for unexplained

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

234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. That the appellant craves leave to adduce additional grounds and / or to amend or withdraw any of the foregoing grounds on or before the hearing of appeal.” 3. The assessee has raised the following additional grounds of appeal:- “1. For that in view of the facts and in the circumstances, the order

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)

68 of the Act in respect of sale proceeds of shares of Kailash Auto Finance Limited (KAFL) treating the same as income from undisclosed sources after rejecting the assessee’s claim of Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) on sale of those shares. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld CITA was justified in upholding

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)

68 of the Act in respect of sale proceeds of shares of Kailash Auto Finance Limited (KAFL) treating the same as income from undisclosed sources after rejecting the assessee’s claim of Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) on sale of those shares. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld CITA was justified in upholding

M/S ARROWSPACE TRADECOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-10(2), KOLKATA

In the result, in light of the discussion made above, this appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

234B and Section 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 respectively through calculation Sheet and demand notice without passing a specific order in this regard. 6. That the Ld. AO was wrong in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961. 7. The Order passed by Ld. AO is unjust, unfair, illegal and invalid

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BASANTI HOSIERY PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed and the cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] I.T.A No. 2147/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Basanti Hosiery Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aadcb 3168 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 98/Kol/2018 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No. 2147/Kol/2017) Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Basanti Hosiery Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aadcb 3168 J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of alleged statement of various persons recorded under section 131 of the Act without allowing the appellant to cross examine them. The Ld. CIT CA) has erred in not adjudicating this ground on merit. 8. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Assessing Officer

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

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

234B and Rs.1,195 under section 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without passing any specific order for such charging of interest in complete disregard of the judgment dated 6th January, 2012 passed by Hon'ble Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of Dhunser Tea & Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT in ITA No. 396 of 2005. 10. That

M/S S.R.BATLIBOI & ASSOCIATES LLP,KOLKATA vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.237/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S S.R. Batliboi & Associates Llp………................……............…..….. Appellant 3Rd Floor, Bloc B, 22, Camac Street, Kolkata. [Pan: Achfs9118A] Vs. Adit, Cpc, Bangalore....................................................…..............……. Respondent Appearances By: Shri D. Ghosh, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sudipta Guha, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 31, 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 21.12.2021 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’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, S.R. Batliboi & Associates Llp ("The Appellant"), Respectfully Craves To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Dated 21St Dec 2021 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) - Nfac [“Cit(A)"], Delhi (Received By The Appellant On 21St Dec 2021) Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act'") On The Following Grounds Which Are Independent & Without Prejudice To Each Other: On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Assistant Director Of Income Tax, Cpc ("Ao") & Cit(A) Has: General 1. Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Ao In Computing Total Income Of The Appellant At Rs. 1,18,67,86,431 As Against Income Of Rs. 1,18,63,50, 198 Offered To Tax By The Appellant In Return Of Income For The Subject Assessment Year; Ex-Parte Order, Non-Grant Of Sufficient Opportunity Of Being Heard

Section 234B of the Act of Rs. 2,68,40,416 instead of Rs. 14,17,660 computed in Revised

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

234B amounting to Rs. 1,72,773 is liable to be summarily rejected. 4. Impugned levying interest under section 234C amounting to Rs. 32,317. 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