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

section 13 of 1922 Act, arises only where no method of accounting has been regularly employed by assessee or where method employed is such that income, profits and gain could not properly be deduced therefrom – held, yes.” In view of the above discussion and the ratio of the cited case laws, it is held that

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

section 13 of 1922 Act, arises only where no method of accounting has been regularly employed by assessee or where method employed is such that income, profits and gain could not properly be deduced therefrom – held, yes.” In view of the above discussion and the ratio of the cited case laws, it is held that

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

section 68 to the credits not involving any receipt or inflow of cash in the relevant year . ITA No.910 & 1187/Kol/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 ACIT Cir-1/2 Bwn Vs. M/s Bardhaman Dharmaraj Paper Mill Pvt. Ltd. Page 12 Moreover, the view taken by the Tribunal in the said case is contrary to the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High

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

section 68 to the credits not involving any receipt or inflow of cash in the relevant year . ITA No.910 & 1187/Kol/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 ACIT Cir-1/2 Bwn Vs. M/s Bardhaman Dharmaraj Paper Mill Pvt. Ltd. Page 12 Moreover, the view taken by the Tribunal in the said case is contrary to the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High

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

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

DCIT,CIR-43,KOL, KOLKATA vs. S.K.AGARWALA & CO, KOLKATA

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

section 68. 5.4. The appellant had submitted the documents required to establish the genuineness of the transaction and/ifi respect of the creditworthiness the appellant submitted the copies of Income Tax Return and their financial statements. The learned AO has not brought any finding of such documents filed by the appellant. Merely due to non-appearance of lenders the learned

DCIT,CIR-43,KOL, KOLKATA vs. S.K.AGARWALA & CO, KOLKATA

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

section 68. 5.4. The appellant had submitted the documents required to establish the genuineness of the transaction and/ifi respect of the creditworthiness the appellant submitted the copies of Income Tax Return and their financial statements. The learned AO has not brought any finding of such documents filed by the appellant. Merely due to non-appearance of lenders the learned

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AXIS OVERSEAS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc 1(1), Kolkata Axis Overseas Limited Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, 21A, Shakespeare Sarani, Vs. 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700107, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagca7497L Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri P.N. Barnwal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.12.2025

Section 68 of the Act. After the Assessing Officer puts the assessee on notice and the assessee submits the explanation with regard to the cash credit, the Assessing Officer should consider the same objectively before he takes a decision to accept or reject it. In Srilekha Banerjee & Ors. Versus CIT 4, it was held that if the explanation given

DCIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S VESUVIUS INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

245 ITR 428, wherein it was held that if a business liability has definitely arisen in the relevant year, the deduction should be allowed although the liability may have to be quantified and discharged at a future date. It was held that what should be certain is the incurring of the liability, which is capable of being estimated with reasonable

MUNDHRA CONSTRUCTION P LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-10(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad, Accountant Member Shri Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member)

section 131 at the instance of the assessee, did not pursue the matter further. The revenue did not examine the source of income of the said alleged creditors to find out whether they were credit-worthy or were such who could advance the alleged loans. There was no effort made to pursue the so- called alleged creditors. In those

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

D.C.I.T., CC - 3(1),, KOLKATA vs. GLIX SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the CO of the assessee and Revenue’s appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pardip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit Glix Securities Private Limited 110, Shanti Pally, 1St Floor 1, Grant Lane, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, Vs. Kolkata-700012, West Bengal Kolkata-700107, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcg1844J Co No. 66/Kol/2025 (Arising In Ita No. 1291/Kol/2025 For A.Y. 2011-12) Dcit Glix Securities Private Limited 110, Shanti Pally, 1St Floor 1, Grant Lane, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, Vs. Kolkata-700012, West Bengal Kolkata-700107, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Revenue By : Shri P.N. Barnwal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.12.2025

68 of the Act. 04. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) allowed the appeal of the assessee after taking into account the contention and submission of the assessee along with the evidences filed by the assessee called for the remand report from the ld. AO which was duly filed by the ld. AO before

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

SRI MANOJ KUMAR JAIN,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 41(1), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2006-07 Manoj Kumar Jain Income Tax Officer Ward- बनाम 44(1), 1St Floor, 3, Govt. 19, Gallif Street, / Kolkata-700 004 V/S. Place (West), Kolkata-001 [Pan No.Acopj 3303 K] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer Ward- Manoj Kumar Jain बनाम 44(1), 1St Floor, 3, Govt. 19, Gallif Street, / Place (West), Kolkata-001 V/S. Kolkata-700 004 [Pan No.Acopj 3303 K] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate आवेदक क" ओर से/By Assessee Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr राज"व क" ओर से/By Revenue 18-08-2020 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 10-09-2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- The Assessee & Revenue Have Filed Their Cross-Appeal For Assessment Year 2006-07 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata’S Order Dated 29.03.2019 Passed In Case No.64/Cit(A)-13/W-44(1)/Kol/2015-16 Restricting The Assessing Officer’S Action Making Undisclosed Income Addition Of ₹2,45,62,196

245,62,195/-. ITA No.978 & 1400/Kol/2019 Assessment Year 2006-07 Manoj Kr. Jain. Vs ITO Wd-44(1), Kol. Page 4 4. The assessee preferred appeal. The CIT(A) has confirmed only the peck sum addition amount of ₹24,33,744/- vide the following discussion:- “6. It was a case of the appellant before the AO that the cash deposited

I T O WARD 44(1), KOLKATA vs. SHRI MANOJ KUMAR JAIN, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2006-07 Manoj Kumar Jain Income Tax Officer Ward- बनाम 44(1), 1St Floor, 3, Govt. 19, Gallif Street, / Kolkata-700 004 V/S. Place (West), Kolkata-001 [Pan No.Acopj 3303 K] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer Ward- Manoj Kumar Jain बनाम 44(1), 1St Floor, 3, Govt. 19, Gallif Street, / Place (West), Kolkata-001 V/S. Kolkata-700 004 [Pan No.Acopj 3303 K] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate आवेदक क" ओर से/By Assessee Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr राज"व क" ओर से/By Revenue 18-08-2020 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 10-09-2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- The Assessee & Revenue Have Filed Their Cross-Appeal For Assessment Year 2006-07 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata’S Order Dated 29.03.2019 Passed In Case No.64/Cit(A)-13/W-44(1)/Kol/2015-16 Restricting The Assessing Officer’S Action Making Undisclosed Income Addition Of ₹2,45,62,196

245,62,195/-. ITA No.978 & 1400/Kol/2019 Assessment Year 2006-07 Manoj Kr. Jain. Vs ITO Wd-44(1), Kol. Page 4 4. The assessee preferred appeal. The CIT(A) has confirmed only the peck sum addition amount of ₹24,33,744/- vide the following discussion:- “6. It was a case of the appellant before the AO that the cash deposited

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