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

DCIT, CIRCLE-2, , ASANSOL vs. M/S. DIAMOND BOTTLING PLANT COMPANY, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, V.P & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.894/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit, Circle-2, Asansol Vs. M/S Diamond Bottling Plant Company C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Seven Brothers Lodge, P.O-Buroshibtala, P.S- Chinsurah, Hooghly, - 712105. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefd5674R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Sr. Dr Respondent By : Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 11/12/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Asansol Dated 30.01.2019 Passed In Case No.58/Cit(A)/Asl/Dcit/Cir-2/Asl/15-16 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Grievance Seeks To Revive Assessing Officer’S Action Treating Assessee’S Loans Of Rs.11,85,00,000/- As Unexplained Cash Credits U/S 68 Which Has Been Reversed To The Extent Of Rs.5,26,50,251/- In The Cit(A)’S Order. Its Case Accordingly Is That The Assessing Officer Had Rightly Added The Assessee’S Total Loan Amount Of Rs. 11,85,00,000/- Raised From Four Entities M/S Diamond Carbon Pvt. Ltd., M/S Mukherjee Capital Pvt. Ltd., M/S Wimper Trading & Distributors Pvt. Ltd. & M/S Mukherjee Farms Pvt. Ltd.

section 68 of the Income- tax Act and the Tribunal below rightly held that the onus was validly discharged. We, thus, find that both the authorities below, on consideration of the materials on record, rightly applied the correct law which are required to be applied in the facts of the present case and, thus, we do not find

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

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]

1, 2, 3 & 4 of the revenue’s appeal.” 7. In the case of M/s. V.R. Global Energy Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-3(4), Chennai, Tax Case (Appeal) No. 246 of 2017 held as follows: “20. Counsel argued, and rightly, that when there was no cash involved in the transaction of allotment of shares, provisions of Section

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

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 of the Act and also allowed the interest expenditure. Thus, no interference is called for in the finding of the ld. CIT(A). Thus, Ground Nos. 1

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 Act. The burden of the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transactions as well as the creditworthiness of the creditor must remain confined to the transactions, which have taken place between the assessee and the creditor. In the present case, the assessee had received unsecured loan of Rs.1,45,00,000/- from the said

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)

1,60,00,000/- under 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

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

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

1) Sahayta Financial Consultancy Serive (ii) Brijdham Dealcom (P) Ltd. still exist as share holders but no response could be evoked from them also. However, the assessee is unable to explain anything in this regard. 2.9. Further, it is imperative to discuss the balance sheet of the assessee company as well as facts and circumstances in respect of share capital

DIAMOND TRADECOM PRIVATE LTD.,MAHARASHTRA vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in initiating penalty 271(1)(b) of the act. I.T.A. No.: 1389/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Diamond Tradecom Private Ltd. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in initiating penalty 271(1)(c) of the act. 4. The appellant craves leave to add further grounds or to amend

SARANG DEALCOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 4(3),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

68 of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld. AO assessed the total income of the assessee at ₹80,62,620/- u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide his order dated 08.03.2024 dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding as under: I.T.A

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

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

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

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