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

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

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

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)

234C are mandatory and in any case is only consequential in nature. The ld AO is directed to recalculate the amount of interest on finally assessed tax after giving effect to this order. 23 A.Yr.2014-15 10. The assessee Mr. Manish Kumar Baid in ITA No.1236/Kol/2017 has raised another issue relating to addition of Rs.2,00,000 under section

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)

234C are mandatory and in any case is only consequential in nature. The ld AO is directed to recalculate the amount of interest on finally assessed tax after giving effect to this order. 23 A.Yr.2014-15 10. The assessee Mr. Manish Kumar Baid in ITA No.1236/Kol/2017 has raised another issue relating to addition of Rs.2,00,000 under section

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

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 to the one involved

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

68 of the Act, specifically mentioned that neither did he give her name Sunil Agarwal A.Y. 10-11 to the assessee nor alleged that he or the assessee deposited cash in her bank account. 7. That the Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, erred in disallowing the sum of Rs.1,41,360 by wrongly alleging that thee was no nexus

ORGA SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm]

68,851 under section 234C and Rs.2,52,841/- under section 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1951. 9. That

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

234C amounting to Rs. 32,317 is liable to be summarily rejected.” 4. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 30.07.2024 dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding as under: “6.1 Grounds of Appeal No. 1 to 4: In these grounds, the appellant has raised the issue

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]

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

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

Section 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on disputed additions and levying interest of Rs. 1,90,68

M/S. TCG LIFESCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

68,889/-. He accordingly worked out the total Transfer Pricing Adjustment to be made in the assessee’s case at Rs.8,95,57,833/-. In the Draft Assessment Order dated 26.12.2016 addition to that extent was made by the Assessing Officer to the total income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer also made further

MAHESH KUMAR CHOUDHARY,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., CIRCLE - 36(1), KOLKATA

Bench: Him & Therefore, It Is Mentioned

68 of the Act chargeable to tax at special rate of the tax prescribed under section 115BBE of the said Act 7. That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in charging interest of Rs.53,828 under section 234A which is otherwise not chargeable and / or excessive and/or unreasonable 8. That

AJIT KUMAR PATNI,KOLKATA vs. IT0, WD-28(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

68 which was claimed exempt under section 10(38) even though all the evidences, documents, papers for substantiating the genuine LTCG Learned were produced by the appellant before the AO. AY: 2011-12 And 2013-14 Ajit Kumar Patni 2. For that in view and circumstances of the case the Learned CIT (APPEAL) NFAC has erred on facts

AJIT KUMAR PATNI,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-28(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

68 which was claimed exempt under section 10(38) even though all the evidences, documents, papers for substantiating the genuine LTCG Learned were produced by the appellant before the AO. AY: 2011-12 And 2013-14 Ajit Kumar Patni 2. For that in view and circumstances of the case the Learned CIT (APPEAL) NFAC has erred on facts

SATYAJIT DAS,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-46(4), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.301/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Satyajit Das……………………...................................................……Appellant Moubesia, Dhulasimla, Uluberia, Howrah-711315. [Pan: Agvpd4627P] Vs. Ito, Ward-46(4), Kolkata..............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 14, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 14, 2023 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 20.11.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “ 1. For That Both The Impugned Order Of Assessment & The Appellate Order Dated 28.12.2017 & 20.11.2019 Respectively Are Bad In Law & Based On Wrong Appreciation Of Facts. 2. For That In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Law In Sustaining The Assessment, As The Assessing Officer Erred In Law In Invoking

68 in the hands of the assessee. 10.FOR THAT Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Learned Assessing Officer in exercise of jurisdiction acted illegally and with material irregularity in passing the order of assessment dated December 28, 2017. 11. FOR THAT Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Learned Assessing Officer below being the quasi-judicial authority

PROVASH SARDAR,C/O-S.K. KHETAN,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XIII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

234C and/or incorrectly calculating the same. The action of the AO was wholly unreasonable, uncalled for and bad in law. The Ld. CIT(A) was unjustified in confirming the action of the AO.” 5. The assessee is proprietor of M/s. Alankita Traders. Brief facts of the case are that pursuant to the search and seizure operation

PROVASH SARDAR,C/O-S.K. KHETAN,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XIII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

234C and/or incorrectly calculating the same. The action of the AO was wholly unreasonable, uncalled for and bad in law. The Ld. CIT(A) was unjustified in confirming the action of the AO.” 5. The assessee is proprietor of M/s. Alankita Traders. Brief facts of the case are that pursuant to the search and seizure operation

ZYDUS HEALTHCARE LTD,GANGTOK vs. ACIT, CIR. 3(2), GANGTOK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 139/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Zydus Healhcare Limited,……..................Appellant (Successor To Zydus Healthcare Sikkim), 4Th Floor, ‘D’ Wing, Zudus Corporate Park, Scheme No. 63, Survey No. 536, Khoraj (Gandhinagar), Nr. Vaishnodevi Circle, Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Gujrat-382481 [Pan: Aaacg1895Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim-737101 Appearances By: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, Ca & Sonal Pandey, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 20, 2023 O R D E R

68,350/-. The ld. Assessing Officer has accepted the returned income by way of an assessment order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act passed on 18.08.2016. The ld. Principal Commissioner, Siliguri took cognizance of revisionary powers under section 263 of the Income Tax Act and set aside the assessment order vide his order dated