ITO, WARD - 13(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GOURI NANDAN REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD.,, HOWRAH

In the result, we uphold the same and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

Section 68 of the said Act treating it as unexplained cash credit are not attracted. 21. Learned counsel for the appellant assessee emphatically argued that inasmuch as the source of credit in which shares were allotted was clearly explainable, the same cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit. Moreover, the identity of the share holders and the liability

JEWEL INDIA JEWELLERS ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR. 4(4), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139 of the Act. However, in the present case no such income was reflected in the return filed under section 139 of the Act rather the income was declared in the return filed under section 153A of the Act after

JEWEL INDIA JEWELLERS,KOLKATQA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR. 4(4), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139 of the Act. However, in the present case no such income was reflected in the return filed under section 139 of the Act rather the income was declared in the return filed under section 153A of the Act after

L B SAREE EMPORIUM,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 43, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

251 (Gujara), has rightly deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer under I.T.A. No. 44/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2013- 14 M/s. Parwati Lakh Udyog 7 section 68

ITO, WD-2(1), SILIGURI, DARJEELING vs. M/S MEGASUN MERCHANTS PVT. LTD., SILIGURI

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1038/Kol/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

section 68 of the Act, treating sum so received by assessee company, as cash credit.We note that all the amounts were received M/s Megasun Merchants Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year:2012-13 from share subscribers, by account payee cheques and have been confirmed by these share subscribers hence he proved the genuineness and identity of the transactions.Therefore, the ld counsel

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AVIMA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act will be that though apart from establishing the identity of the creditor, the assessee must establish the genuineness of the transaction as well as the creditworthiness of his creditor. The burden of the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transactions as well as the creditworthiness of the creditor must remain confined

THE W.B STATE CO-OP AGRI AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-32/ KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18 The W.B. State Co-Op. Agri & Assistant Commissioner Of Rural Development Bank Ltd. Income-Tax, Circle-32, Vs 25D, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata. Kolkata-700017. (Pan: Aaajt0468K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 of the Act which the 4 The W.B. State Co-op. Agri and Rural Dev. Bank Ltd. AY: 2017-18. Ld. CIT(A) has held to be added under section 69A by invoking his plenary powers under section 251

NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of an order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B and not under Section 144 of the Act. 3. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred both in law and on facts by passing the order on 07/01/2025 at 11:26 IST, prior

NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of an order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B and not under Section 144 of the Act. 3. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred both in law and on facts by passing the order on 07/01/2025 at 11:26 IST, prior

ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONEROF INCOMETAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2),KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA vs. M/S. ANUBANDH FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 251 is a further addition to the power given to the CIT(A) as specified u/s 251(1). A reading of the said Explanation shows that the authority of the CIT(A) travels to any matter which may arise out of the proceedings, which is appealed against, notwithstanding the fact that such matter was not raised

UNISYS SOFTWARES AND HOLDING IND. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12

68 of the IT Act 1961 on the grounds of unexplained cash credit which is not correct. For that the observation and contention of the L d. Assessing Officer in completing the assessment by making arbitrary disallowance and addition under the head unexplained cash credit is not correct. 2.General: For that the appellant craves leave to adduce, modify

OPLUS STEEL AND POWER PVT. LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS SWATI CONCAST AND POWER PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

68 of the Act while a sum of Rs. 4,84,000/- being 2% of the accommodation entry was added u/s 69C of the Act and the total income was assessed at Rs. 2,25,13,079/- u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before

ADIDARSHAN TRADEWING PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

68 of the I. T. Act, 1961 towards additions made for share capital of Rs. 48,470/- and share premium of Rs. 4,84,21,530/- which is without proper basis, reason or justification. 4. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the actions of the Ld. Assessing Officer in charging interest

PROVASH ADHIKARI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 46(4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

68. 7. The appellant craves leave to add further grounds of appeal or alter the grounds at the time of hearing. 2. The brief facts of the case of the assessee as mentioned in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) are as under: “The assessee filed his return showing a total income of Rs.2,43,444/-. The matter

SUDHIR JAISWAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 37(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2015-16

68 of the Act. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,19,750/-being unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition

TEJAS TRANSCOM (P) LTD.,BURDWAN WEST vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(2), DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2010-11

68 of the Act for an amount of Rs. 69,17,000/-, and Ground No. 8 related to the addition of Rs. 10,23,120/- on account of unverified sundry creditors. No statement of facts has been filed along with the appeal memo. However, the same as filed before the Ld. CIT(A) has been culled out from Form

M/S. POSITIVE VYAPAAR PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 9(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sh. George Mathan & Sh. Rakesh Mishra

68 of the Act at ₹ 1,62,90,000/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide order dated I.T.A. No.: 2492/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Positive Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. 03.05.2024 dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before

STARPOINT VINIMAY PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) WARD-1(1), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 68 does not apply to unexplained investments and hence the addition of Rs 38,40,000/- may be deleted. 4) The Ld NFAC/CIT(A) erred confirming the addition of Rs. 38,40,000/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being investment in unlisted securities without appreciating that said investments are coming from earlier assessment year