ITO, WARD-6(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ADVENT STOCK MANAGEMENT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

248 ITR 33, held that once the assessee has prove identity of creditor share applicant, by either furnishing PAN or copy of their bank account, the addition under section 68

ITO, WD-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S GOODLUCK MERCHANTS P LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(2), Kolkata.……......……….........…………..………….…................Appellant Vs. M/S. Goodluck Merchants P. Ltd..........….……...........…………..……………….…...……..…….......Respondent 10/4B, Elgin Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aabcb 2011 L]

248 ITR 33, held that once the assessee has prove identity of creditor share applicant, by either furnishing PAN or copy of their bank account, the addition under section 68

ITO, WD-9(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S GOLDSTAR TRACOM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Madhumita Roy) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2), Kolkata...........................................................…..…….………..Appellant M/S. Goldstar Tracom Pvt. Ltd…..………………………………………..……………...…….…............Respondent 4, Synagougue Street Burrabazar Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan: Aadcg 8045 K] Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 12Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 9Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

248 ITR 33, held that once the assessee has prove identity of creditor share applicant, by either furnishing PAN or copy of their bank account, the addition under section 68

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PREMIER ROAD CARRIERS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A No. 960/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2000-01 D.C.I.T., Circle-8, -Vs.- M/S. Premier Road Carriers Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcr8968E] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri S.S.Alam, Addl. Cit For The Respondent : Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2016. Date Of Pronouncement : 2.12.2016. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (2) That the appellant craves leave to add and/ or modify the ground of appeal at the time of hearing of the case.” 16. The Assessee has filed an application under Rule 27 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963(ITAT Rules), seeking to raise the following grounds of appeal challenging

SATI PROMOTERS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-9(4), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

248. We also note that in five (5) cases out of total ten subscribers, the assessment orders passed u/s 143(3) of the Act are available in the paper book. We even note that no summons u/s 131 or notices u/s 133(6) of the Acts were issued to the subscribers. Therefore to conclude that the assessee has not proved

ACIT, CIRCLE - 35, , KOLKATA vs. M/S. KWALITY STEEL PROCESSORS, KOLKATA

Accordingly appeal of the assessee dismissed

248 (SC) that no addition could be made based on statement recorded during survey powers u/s 133A of the Act does not empower the ITO to examine any person on oath and hence the statement recorded thereon has got no eindentiary value". In the case of Anupam Nadi vs. ITO, Ward -46(1), Kolkata.fITA No. 2037/Kol/2014) given

M/S. N G BROTHERS,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 40, , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 147 of the Act by the ld. AO, the ld. AO has to record his satisfaction and reasons to believe independently for each assessment year separately. In our opinion, the reopening of assessment based upon the reasons recorded in A.Y. 2016-17, is incorrect and cannot be sustained. Therefore, even on this issue, the reopening of assessment

M/S. N G BROTHERS,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 40, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 147 of the Act by the ld. AO, the ld. AO has to record his satisfaction and reasons to believe independently for each assessment year separately. In our opinion, the reopening of assessment based upon the reasons recorded in A.Y. 2016-17, is incorrect and cannot be sustained. Therefore, even on this issue, the reopening of assessment

M/S. N G BROTHERS,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 40, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 147 of the Act by the ld. AO, the ld. AO has to record his satisfaction and reasons to believe independently for each assessment year separately. In our opinion, the reopening of assessment based upon the reasons recorded in A.Y. 2016-17, is incorrect and cannot be sustained. Therefore, even on this issue, the reopening of assessment

M/S. N G BROTHERS,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 40,, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 147 of the Act by the ld. AO, the ld. AO has to record his satisfaction and reasons to believe independently for each assessment year separately. In our opinion, the reopening of assessment based upon the reasons recorded in A.Y. 2016-17, is incorrect and cannot be sustained. Therefore, even on this issue, the reopening of assessment

M/S. N G BROTHERS,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 40, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 147 of the Act by the ld. AO, the ld. AO has to record his satisfaction and reasons to believe independently for each assessment year separately. In our opinion, the reopening of assessment based upon the reasons recorded in A.Y. 2016-17, is incorrect and cannot be sustained. Therefore, even on this issue, the reopening of assessment

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

KIRAN KOTHARI HUF,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 35(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And डॉ. अजु"न लाल सैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

68 of the Act. 4. On appeal, the Ld CIT (A) upheld the decision of the AO and in his order, he reproduced the balance sheet and profit loss account of the said Company for the period 31-03-2011 to 31-03-2015 and he concluded that the company had poor financials and thus it did not justify

SUDARSHAN PANJA,HALDIA vs. DCIT, CIR. 27(1), HALDIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for 12

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.574/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sudarshan Panja ………. Appellant (Pan: Akbpp6220A)) Vs. Dcit, Circle-27(1), Haldia ………… Respondent Appearances By: N O N E Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 29.08.2024 Order Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 08.02.2024 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Framed U/S. 263/143(3) Of The Act By Dcit, Circle-27(1), Haldia Dated 30.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Read As Under:

248 /- from son, friends and relatives which are routed through bank and the same has been duly considered in books of accounts. As per provision of section of 68

AMIT KHEMKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 147/143 (3) of the Act was made in which the cash deposit of Rs.1,32,78,248/- and other deposits of Rs.93,19,076/- with the total amount of Rs.2,25,97,324/- were added. These deposits were in the assessee’s savings bank account no. 911010025080997 in Axis Bank during the FY 2011-12. The assessment order

AMIT KHEMKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 147/143 (3) of the Act was made in which the cash deposit of Rs.1,32,78,248/- and other deposits of Rs.93,19,076/- with the total amount of Rs.2,25,97,324/- were added. These deposits were in the assessee’s savings bank account no. 911010025080997 in Axis Bank during the FY 2011-12. The assessment order

NARAYAN SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

248 CTR 33\n(Del)(HC).\n13.\nCIT v. Multiplex Trading & Industrial Co Ltd (2015) 128 DTR\n217 (Del) (HC).\n14.\nCIT vs. Fair Invest Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 146 (Del.) (HC).\n15.\nPr. CIT vs. SNG Developers Ltd. [2018] 404 ITR 312 (Del.)\n(HC).\n16.\nPCIT vs. Shodiman Investments Pvt. Ltd, (2018) 93\ntaxmann.com 153/167

M/S AB (WINES) STORES,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, KOLKATA-14, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.901/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ab (Wines) Stores -Vs.- Pr. C.I.T., Kolkata-14 Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aajfa 6312 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri R.S.Biswas, Cit Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 Order

68,521/- was on account of Tax Collected at Source (TCS) by the creditor not considered by the assessee in its books. However, such non-consideration of purchases has not resulted in any loss of tax to the revenue and hence the same cannot be said to be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Infact it had only resulted

I.T.O WD - 54(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BIJAYA KUMAR SAHOO, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

section 142(3) where he submits two letters one from Mrs.Pratima Swain and other his father Mr. Maguni Sahoo stating that the assessee was conducting the business of processing of biodegradable waste. 11. On demand of the AO the assessee was unable to produce the details of the labourers engaged in this business. So charging of labour expenses were