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 68 for the following reasons given in his impugned order:- “On careful consideration of the contentions of the A/R of the appellant, it is Inferred therefrom that, firstly, an objection was raised regarding non-appearance of the directors of all the 13 companies before the A.O in response to summons issued u/s 131 of the I.T. Act that

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 68 of the Act, does not apply on the facts and circumstances of the case as it was barter/exchange of shares/investments. b) That the assessee has proved the creditworthiness and identity of the share applicant companies as well as the genuineness of the transactions. c) The shares in question were allotted through passing of journal entries only against

M/S. ACCESS GLOBAL LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

246 of 2017, whereby the issue of book adjustment under section 68 of the Act has been discussed and adjudicated

DCIT, CENTRAL -4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAJESH AUTO MERCHANDISE PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 68 of the Act,\ntherefore, no need to add this amount u/s 68 of the Act. The Id. CIT\n(A) while allowing the appeal of the assessee relied on the decisions of\nPCIT VS. Sreeleathers [2022] 143 taxmann.com 435\n(Calcutta)/[2022] 448 ITR 332 (Calcutta)[14-07-2022] and Rohini\nBuilders Vs. DCIT [2001] 117 Taxman

SHANKAR TRADERS & DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 199/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shankar Traders & Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Distributors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Aaykar Bhawan, A-Block, 1St Floor, Mercantile P-7, Chowringhee Square, Building, 9, Lal Bazar Street, Kolkata-700, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, [Pan: Aadcs8907L] West Bengal अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent)

Section 68 of the Act.” 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, thus, has held that once the assessee has submitted the documents relating to identity, genuineness of the transaction, and credit-worthiness of the subscribers, then the AO is duty bound conduct to conduct an independent enquiry to verify the same. However, as noted above, the Assessing Officer

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. 5.17. The ld AR submitted that on the facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis of incontrovertible evidences produced by the assessee, the ld AO was not justified in concluding that the assessee’s transactions relating to LTCG on sale of shares of KAFL were bogus. The ld CIT(A) was also

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. 5.17. The ld AR submitted that on the facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis of incontrovertible evidences produced by the assessee, the ld AO was not justified in concluding that the assessee’s transactions relating to LTCG on sale of shares of KAFL were bogus. The ld CIT(A) was also

TERAI FRUITS COMPANY,SILIGURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), SILIGURI, SILIGURI

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

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

246 or] section 246A or an application for revision under section 264 shall be admissible against the order of assessment or reassessment, referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1), in a case where an order under sub-section (4) has been made accepting the application.” 4.1. Since the required Form No. 68

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. 5.17. The ld AR submitted that on the facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis of incontrovertible evidences produced by the assessee, the ld AO was not justified in concluding that the assessee’s transactions relating to LTCG on sale of shares of KAFL were bogus. The ld CIT(A) was also

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-30(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SANJEEV KEJRIWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 2190/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward-30(3), Kolkata -Vs- Sanjeev Kejriwal [Pan: Aevpk 7424 H ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 68 3 Sanjeev Kejriwal A.Yr. 2008-09 per se are not at all applicable in the facts of the instant case as it pertains to trade receipts and not loan receipts or share capital receipts. The assessee also placed reliance on certain decisions in support of these contentions. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition by observing

EXIMCORP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-5(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

68,246 for ITA 702. The grounds are as under: Assessment Year-2015-16: “1. FOR THAT, the CIT(A) has in passing the impugned order dated 15.5.2023, erroneously added back the amount of usance interest of Rs. 12,72,292/- debited in the P/L account of the appellant, by wrongfully invoking Section

EXIMCORP INDIA (P) LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-5(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

68,246 for ITA 702. The grounds are as under: Assessment Year-2015-16: “1. FOR THAT, the CIT(A) has in passing the impugned order dated 15.5.2023, erroneously added back the amount of usance interest of Rs. 12,72,292/- debited in the P/L account of the appellant, by wrongfully invoking Section

LAXMIDHAN TRADELINK PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 68 of the Act, the Assessing Officer was justified in adding back the amounts to the Assessee's income. 16. The Appeal filed by the Appellant - Revenue is allowed. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and the law laid down above, the judgment of the High Court, the ITAT, and the CIT are hereby set-aside. The Order

ITO, WD.9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S MAHARAJ VINCOM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata……………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…..…..... Respondent 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] C.O. No.6/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…....... Cross-Objector 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] Vs Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata …………..….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 07, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: This Appeal By The Revenue & Corresponding Cross-Objection By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 08.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

246 ITR 173 the Division Bench of this Court opined that an intimation under section 143(1) (a) cannot be treated to be an order of assessment. Therefore, although the assessment had been completed under section 143(1) (a), recourse could be taken to section 147. In that case while finalising assessment for the assessment year

RUKMINI DEVI MANPURIA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT(IT), CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 1724/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Rukmini Devi Manpuria -Vs- Dcit(It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata [Pan: Axapm 3836 H ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 of the Act. 5.17. The ld AR submitted that on the facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis of incontrovertible evidences produced by the assessee, the ld AO was not justified in concluding that the assessee’s transactions relating to LTCG on sale of shares of KAFL were bogus. The ld CIT(A) was also

AMIT GHOSE,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-22, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1412/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Amit Ghose -Vs- Dcit, Circle-22, Kolkata [Pan: Adxpg 4852 G] (Formerly Jcit, Range-22, Kolkata) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961- Business expenditure –Allowability of – Assessment Years 2002-03 & 2003-04 Fine paid by assessee stock broker who was a member of NSE, on account of unfair trade practice and un-business like conduct is not for violation of law and hence, cannot be disallowed. The members

M/S GAURISHANKAR BIHANI,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.-CIRCLE-34, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee on ground No

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

68,41,246/- without considering the facts in the matter and such action of the Ld. CIT(A) & AO is wholly bad in law, illegal and in view of the facts and in the circumstances such addition made is liable to be deleted and it may kindly be held accordingly.” 4.1 Ground No. 1 relates to addition

MANJIT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (P) LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 9(1) , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 2667/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Manjit Management Services Pvt. Ltd………………....………………..……………..……….….Appellant Plot No. 258/B Block-B Bangue Avenue Kolkata-700 055 [Pan : Aaecm 4773 D] Income Tax Officer, Ward – 9(1), Kolkata…….......................................................…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sankar Haldar, Jcit, Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

68 of the Act, being amount 2 I.T.A. No. 2667/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Manjit Management Services Pvt. Ltd received towards share capital along with share premium, as unexplained cash credit. 3. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before me. 4. The only contention raised by the assessee is that the enhancement made by the ld. CIT(A) is beyond