DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. SDR MEGHNATH INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

68 of the Act. In the ld. CIT(A)’s order we find that the details of share allotment, the moneys received in the form of share application money/premium and ld. CIT(A) has mentioned by preparing chart in this context as under: “SDR MEGHNATH INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. DETAILS OF SHARE ALLOTMENT DURING F.Y. 2011-12 FACE VALUE OF SHARES

HARSHWARDHAN GEMS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of revenue and that of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

section 68 of the Act, let me examine the facts of the case before me. In the present case, the facts which emanate from the assessment order and the submissions of the A/R are that: a) the assessee had submitted the copies share application and money receipts in respect of the subscribers to its share capital, and the subscribers

ITO, WARD - 12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. HARSHWARDHAN GEMS P. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of revenue and that of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

section 68 of the Act, let me examine the facts of the case before me. In the present case, the facts which emanate from the assessment order and the submissions of the A/R are that: a) the assessee had submitted the copies share application and money receipts in respect of the subscribers to its share capital, and the subscribers

SMT. SUSHILA DEVI KAJARIA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 36, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

section 68 of the Act. 14. The ld AR submitted that there is no direct evidence against the assessee brought on record by AO to hold that the assessee introduced his own unaccounted money by way of bogus LTCG. The ld AR submitted that although various investigations were carried out by different agencies, there is no evidence against

NAVIN KUMAR KAJARIA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 35, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

section 68 of the Act. 14. The ld AR submitted that there is no direct evidence against the assessee brought on record by AO to hold that the assessee introduced his own unaccounted money by way of bogus LTCG. The ld AR submitted that although various investigations were carried out by different agencies, there is no evidence against

M/S MODERN MALLEABLES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 68 of the Act is attracted. We note that JV Agreement is between M/s. NCPL and assessee and the terms and conditions of the JV has been stated in the JV agreement found placed at page 1 to 21 of the paper book. From a perusal of the said agreement there is no clause which stipulated that

ITO, WD-5(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PURBASA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2008-09 Income Tax Officer, V/S. M/S Purbasa Commercial Pvt. Ltd. 5/5 Clive Row, 4Th Ward-5(2), P-7, Chowringhee Square, Floor, Room No.26, 8Th Floor, Room No.6, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700 069 [Pan No.Aaecp 1267B] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 15-01-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 25-01-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2008-09 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata’S Order Dated 29.06.2015, Passed In Case No.1575/Cit(A)-2/2015-16, In Proceedings U/S. 144 R.W.S 263 R.W.S. 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Case File Perused. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Ground Raised In The Instant Appeal Seeks To Revere The Cit(A)’S Action Deleting Unexplained Cash Credits Addition Of ₹3.14 Lac Made In The Course Of Assessment Framed On 19.03.2015. The Assessee’S Case Before Assessing Officer Was That This Sum Represented Its Share Application / Premium Raised During The Course Of Relevant Previous Year. The Assessing Officer Held In The Course Of Assessment That Assessee Had Failed To Prove Identity, Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of The Investors

Section 68 the assessment was made on this sum. The IT AT noted that the assessed was a Public. Limited Company which had received subscriptions to the public issue through banking channels and the shares were allotted in consonance with the provisions of the Securities Contract Regulation Act, 1956 as also the Rules & Regulations of the Delhi Stock Exchange

DY. CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. FEMINA STOCK MANAGEMENT COMPANY LTD, KOLKATA

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 850/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Cit Central Circle – 1(4), Kolkata Femina Stock Management Company Vs Ltd. 5Th Floor, Room No. 2 P23/24, Radha Bazar Street Tea Board Kolkata - 700001 [Pan: Aaacf3689H] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/10/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata – 21, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 12/05/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 36 Days In Filing The Present Appeal By The Revenue. Petition For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record Explaining The Reasons. On Perusing The Same, We Are Convinced That The Revenue Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing This Appeal In Time. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Admit The Appeal For Hearing. 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

section 68 of the Act, for the impugned transactions in relation to the particular company present on those premises. These documents have already been elaborately listed earlier in this order, and included the PAN Card, IT acknowledgement, audited balance sheets and so on. It was also pointed out in the 1st remand report that the inspector did not find

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 269 of the I.T. Act says the definition of High Court.\nIn this chapter High Court means:\n(i) in relation to any State, the High Court for that State;\n(ii) in relation to the Union Territory of Delhi, the High Court of Delhi;\na)*\n(iii)****\n(iv) in relation to the Union Territory

HIMADRI VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, (OSD), WARD-1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

68 of the Act. Once again assessee stated that the proceedings against it is void-ab-initio as no notice under section 143(2) of the Act once issued upon it after filing of its return in compliance to notice under section 148 of the Act. 24. 20.02.2024 Notice under section 250 of the Act was issued

SHRI UDIT AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. DCIT(IT)-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed accordingly

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2014-15 Shri Udit Agarwal V/S. Dcit (It)-2(1), 110, 3, Madan Mohan Burman Shanti Pally, Kolkata- Street, Kolkataa-007 107 [Pan No.Ahupa 0424 B] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 03-12-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 26-12-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22,Kolkata’S Order Dated 10.05.2017 Passed In Case No.71/Cit(A)/22/Kol/14-15/16-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Learned Representatives. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Ground Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Treating Its Long Term Capital Gains (Ltcg) Of ₹64,99,391/- To Be Unexplained Cash Credits U/S 68 Of The Act. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reads As Under:- ”06. Decision: 1. I Have Carefully Considered The Action Of The Ld. Ao In Treating The Amount Of Rs.67,24,391/- Being Claimed By The Appellant To Be Proceeds Of Shares Sold To Be Ltcg & Claimed As Exempt. The Findings Of The Ld. Ao Are Based On The Information Being Supplied By The Investigation Wing Of The Department At Kolkata. I Have Also Carefully Examined The Submissions Of The Appellant, Wherein

section 68 of the Act. 14. The ld AR submitted that there is no direct evidence against the assessee brought on record by AO to hold that the assessee introduced his own unaccounted money by way of bogus LTCG. The ld AR submitted that although various investigations were carried out by different agencies, there is no evidence against

ADITYA VIKRAM SUREKA, HUF,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 34(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 1650/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Aditya Vikram Sureka Huf -Vs- Ito, Ward-34(2) , Kolkata [Pan: Aamha 4069 D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 68 of the Act. 14. The ld AR submitted that there is no direct evidence against the assessee brought on record by AO to hold that the assessee introduced his own unaccounted money by way of bogus LTCG. The ld AR submitted that although various investigations were carried out by different agencies, there is no evidence against

SMT. MADHU KILLA, KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 36, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

section 68 of the Act. 14. The ld AR submitted that there is no direct evidence against the assessee brought on record by AO to hold that the assessee introduced his own unaccounted money by way of bogus LTCG. The ld AR submitted that although various investigations were carried out by different agencies, there is no evidence against

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

269 (iv) On perusal of the aforesaid balance sheet it would be noticed that the cash withdrawal from his bank account has been used for house construction or loans given to others. There is no cash balance. (v) Statement of the Loan creditor was recorded under section 131 of the Act by DDIT(lnv), Raipur, initially on 05.02.2013 wherein

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. BHAWANI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., HOWRAH

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

section 68 of the Act. 6. Upon hearing the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the respective parties, we have perused the record and the order of Ld. CIT(A). The assessee company is engaged in the business of construction and developers in real estate in different parts of the country. The share applicant company is regularly assessed

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross-objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata…..……………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Privi Exports Pvt. Ltd….………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Office No.2, Gf, 91A/1, Park Street, Kol-16. [Pan: Aaicp6253B] C.O. No.67/Kol/2025 (In Ita No.1605/Kol/2025) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Privi Exports Pvt. Ltd.….……………………. ….……….……….……Cross-Objector Office No.2, Gf, 91A/1, Park Street, Kol-16. [Pan: Aaicp6253B] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata...…………………....…..…………….Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri S B Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 02, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 12, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey:

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.75,00,000/- from the said lending

ANCHITA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. P.C.I.T., KOLKATA - 2, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 637/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-12(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 & I.T.A. No. 1067/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Pcit, Kolkata-2, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

68 in a re-assessment order passed under section 147 of the Income Tax Act. (c) The revenue authorities have erred in charging interests under sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act. 3. First we take the issue challenging reopening of the assessment. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed

ANCHITA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-12(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 637/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-12(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 & I.T.A. No. 1067/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Pcit, Kolkata-2, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

68 in a re-assessment order passed under section 147 of the Income Tax Act. (c) The revenue authorities have erred in charging interests under sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act. 3. First we take the issue challenging reopening of the assessment. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed