ITO, WARD-10(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S GATEWAY ENCLAVE PVT.LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

239 ITR 77 (Cal) it has been held that burden lies upon the assessee to prove the noted three conditions. In CIT vs. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. (1994) 208 ITR 465 (Cal) the Hon'ble High Court held that "it is for the assessee to prove the 3 M/s. Gateway Enclave Pvt. Ltd., AY 2012-13 identity of the creditors

KAJAL KUMAR ROY,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD - 1(4), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M. Jagtap] I.T.A. No. 1568/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Kajal Kumar Roy.............................…………………………………………Appellant C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, “Seven Brothers”, Lodge, Buroshibtala, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 105 [Pan : Adgprs 8137 G] Income Tax Officer...................……………………………………………….......Respondent Ward 1(4), Hooghly Aayakar Bhawan, G.T. Road Khadina More, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 101 Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Satyajit Mondal, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 31, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 22, 2017 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 6, Kolkata Dated 20.04.2017 & The Solitary Issue Involved Therein Relates To The Addition Of Rs. 13,03,000/- Made By The A.O. & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit (A) On Account Of Loans Taken By The Assessee From Four Parties By Treating The Same As Unexplained Cash Credits Under Section 68. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual Who Is Engaged In The Business Of Trading Of Potatos. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed By Him On 25.09.2011 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 10,92,457/- Including Agricultural Income Of Rs.

section 68 of the Act is discharged by the assessee only when the assessee proves three things to the satisfaction of the AO viz, identity of the creditor, capacity of the creditor and genuineness of the transactions. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. (1998) 232 ITR 820 (Cal) has held that mere

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 to the tune of Rs. 18,27,00,000/- stands deleted. In the result the grounds are partly allowed.” 06. The ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by following the decision of the co-ordinate bench in case of M/s Swarna Kalash Commercial Pvt. ltd. Vs. ACIT in IT(SS)A No. 53/KOL/2022

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 to the tune of Rs. 18,27,00,000/- stands deleted. In the result the grounds are partly allowed.” 06. The ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by following the decision of the co-ordinate bench in case of M/s Swarna Kalash Commercial Pvt. ltd. Vs. ACIT in IT(SS)A No. 53/KOL/2022

I.T.O.,WARD-1(4), KOLKATA vs. M/S GARIMA ADVISORY PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 68 as reproduced hereinabove, it is crystal clear that additions u/s 68 of the act would relate only to sums found credited in the books of account of an assessee for the previous year in which it was introduced. There is no dispute that share application money was received in the A.Y. 2011-12 as evident

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

68 of the Act particularly when the purchase of shares was not doubted in the earlier assessment years. The ld. CIT (A) relied on a series of decisions as extracted hereinabove while deleting the addition. The ld. CIT (A) noted that the shares were purchased by the assessee company during the financial year 2010-11 and have not been doubted

ITO, WARD - 6(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. CARELINK VYAPAAR PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1752/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

section 68 of the Act, it is abundantly clear that in the cases where the credit does not relate to the assessment year under consideration, that is, A.Y.2012-13, and having beenbrought forward from the earlier assessment years, it cannot be added during the assessment year under consideration, evenwhen it is unexplained. As such, the addition for the share application

M/S. SONATA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 677/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,..........Appellant Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 -Vs.- M/S. Sonata Construction Pvt. Limited......Respondent Ground Floor, 18, A.P.C. Road, Kolkata-700009 [Pan: Aakcs7085G] -A N D - I.T.A. No. 753/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-2018

section 68 of the Act, however, the purpose of this huge cash deposits and withdrawals is not explained at any stage. 12. As regards the unsecured loan through Banking channel is concerned, the assessee has placed various documents of all the alleged cash credits to explain the identity and creditworthiness of the cash creditors but the genuineness

DCIT, CC-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SONATA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 677/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,..........Appellant Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 -Vs.- M/S. Sonata Construction Pvt. Limited......Respondent Ground Floor, 18, A.P.C. Road, Kolkata-700009 [Pan: Aakcs7085G] -A N D - I.T.A. No. 753/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-2018

section 68 of the Act, however, the purpose of this huge cash deposits and withdrawals is not explained at any stage. 12. As regards the unsecured loan through Banking channel is concerned, the assessee has placed various documents of all the alleged cash credits to explain the identity and creditworthiness of the cash creditors but the genuineness

JASHOJIT MUKHERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 403/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Jashojit Mukherjee -Vs- Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata [Pan: Afapm 7208 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

239 Taxman 456 (Kar) on similar set of facts and circumstances had held as under:- The appellant-Revenue has preferred the present appeal by raising the following substantial question of law: "Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law deleting the addition of Rs. 81,40,232 on account of cessation

SUPERDEAL RESOURCES PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 5(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Superdeal Resources Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Wad 5(1), Kolkata C/O Subash Agarwal & Ito, Ward 5(1), Associates, Advocates Sidha Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite Vs. Chowringhee Square, 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 Kolkata-70069 West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs7472E Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.09.2025

68 of the Act. 04. The ld. CIT (A) simply dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the assessee company has sold unlisted shares which were not invested in real companies and therefore, sale consideration realized during the year was apparently bogus in nature to provide accommodation entries only. The ld. CIT(A) also relied on the principle

PREM PRASAD,MALDA vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), MALDA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

section 68 of the Act. Then, the learned CIT (A) was duty- bound to reduce the same from the amount of sales as the same does not represent the sale but unexplained cash credit. As such, the same amount cannot be held taxable twice as per the wish of the learned CIT (A). In our considered view the action

KRYPTON DISTRIBUTORS LLP (EARLIER KNOWN AS KRYPTON DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD.,),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 12(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Krypton Distributors Llp (Earlier Known As Krypton Ito, Ward 12(1), Distributors P. Ltd.) Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, Flat No.1A, 1, Abdul Rasul Chowringhee Square, Vs. Avenue, Kalighat, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal Kolkata-700026, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadck5298G Assessee By : Shri Manoj Katuruka, Ar Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Pandey, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.12.2025

68 of the Act cannot be invoked. The case of the assessee find support from the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in ITAT/239/2024 in IA No. GA/2/2024 vide order dated 16th April, 2025, in the case of PCIT Vs. Tulsyan and Sons Private Limited, which has been followed in the case of ACIT Vs. Pawanputra Krypton Distributors

ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. ASHIRBAD REAL ESTATE & TRANSPORT PVT. LTD., ASANSOL

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee in CO 1/2012 is dismissed and revenue appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 2008-09 (Appellant ) (Respondent) A.C.I.T., Circle-1, -Versus- Ashirbad Real Estate & Asansol Transport Pvt.Ltd. Burdwan (Pan:Aaeca 8075 C) C.O.No.1/Kol/2012 A/O Ita No.1591/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ashirbad Real Estate & -Versus- A.C.I.T., Circle-1, Transport Pvt.Ltd., Burdwan Asansol (Pan Aaeca 8075 C) (Cross Objector) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri S.S.Alam, Cit (Dr) For The Respondent : Shri Aravind Agarwal, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2015. Order Per Shri M.Balaganesh, Am 1. This Appeal Of The Revenue & Cross Objection Of The Assessee Arises Out Of The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) In Appeal No142/Cit(A)/Asl/Range-1/Asl/10-11 Dated 27.09.2011 For The Asst Year 2008-09 Arising Out Of The Order Of The Learned Assessing Officer Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

68,000/- paid to L & T Finance Ltd. 3.1. The Learned AR stated that the assessee is engaged in the business of carrying out transportation of coal handling and unloading and excavation job on contract basis. He informed that during the course of hearing, an addition u/s 40(a)(ia) of the act was made by the Learned AO towards

ALCO SUPPLIERS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Alco Suppliers Private Limited M/S Alco Suppliers (P) Ltd. National Faceless Assessment C/O Subhas Agarwal & Center, Associates (Advocate) Siddha Assessment Unit, Income Tax Vs. Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suit Department, New Delhi No.213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata- 700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacca5182E Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.11.2025

68 of the Act and added accordingly to the income of the assessee in the assessment framed u/s 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act dated 29.03.2024. 04. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 05. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee, M/s. Alco Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., incorporated

M/S. PEARL TRACOM PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm M/S Pearl Tracom Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle 3(1) C/O M/S Salarpuriajajodia& Co.7, Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, C.R. Avenue, 3Rd Floor, Chworinghee Square, Kolkata- Vs. Kolkata-700072, West Bengal 700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp9934G Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.04.2026

68 of the Act on the ground that the assessee has failed to prove the three ingredients i.e. existence and creditworthiness of the parties and genuineness of the transactions. The ld. AO also added the commission at the rate of 0.25% on the above said amount which come

SHREE RAMCHANDRA INGOT INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC-4(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed and all six appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

68 of the Act. 15. Controverting the arguments of the ld. CIT DR, ld. AR submitted that the buyer of investments had replied to the summons issued u/s.131 of the Act by confirming the transactions and also filed the supporting evidences. Therefore, the allegation of the AO that the amalgamating companies were shell/bogus companies is devoid of any truth

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHREE RAMCHANDRA INGOT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed and all six\nappeals of the revenue are dismissed

68 of the Act.\n15. Controverting the arguments of the Id. CIT DR, Id. AR submitted\nthat the buyer of investments had replied to the summons issued u/s.131\nof the Act by confirming the transactions and also filed the supporting\nevidences. Therefore, the allegation of the AO that the amalgamating\ncompanies were shell/bogus companies is devoid of any truth