M/S. SHREE SHANKAR SERVICE STATION. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-49(1), KOL, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 269T of the Act and therefore, initiated penalty proceedings 271E of the Act. Page 3 of 8 I.T.A. No.: 594/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Shree Shankar Service Station. 5. During the course of penalty proceedings when the assessee was confronted with the alleged repayment of unsecured loan in cash, it was stated by the assessee that

RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-47,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

68 of the Act. In the same assessment he also initiated the penalty proceedings u/s. 271D and 271E of the Act for violation of provisions of section 269SS and 269T

BINOD KUMAR AGARWAL.,UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. J.C.I.T RANGE - 2,JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed as stated above

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

section 269SS and 269T respectively. The ld. JCIT ignoring the submissions of the assessee proposed to levy the impugned penalties u/s. 271D and 271E of the Act amounting to Rs. 4,68

M/S ARKIT VINCOM PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT RANGE 9, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2397/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S Arkit Vincom Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Range-9, Kolkata [Pan: Aacca 3907 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 269T of the Act refers only to repayment in the form of money and does not apply to repayment in kind or through book adjustments. The ld AO observed that on examination of the balance sheet of the assessee company as on 31.3.2008, that the assessee has claimed loss in operation. It has a small turnover

ANITA BASAK,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC 1(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Anita Basak Acit, Central Circle 1(1), C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Kolkata, Advocates, Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, 2, Garstin Place, 2 Nd Floor, Suite 110 Shanti Pally, 5 Th Floor, Vs. No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata, Eastern Metropolitian By Pass, West Bengal-700001, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahhpb5785B Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ruchika Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.12.2025

sections 68, 69, 269SS, 269T, 140(3) etc. in the enactment of section 44AD. Thus reading entire scheme

SUDISH YADAV,DARJEELING vs. ITO, WARD - 2(2), SILIGURI, SILIGURI

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble] I.T.A. No. 1518/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sudish Yadav………………………….………….…..………………………………………….…….……...Appellant Prakash Nagar, Bypass Nh-31, Sevok Road Siliguri Darjeeling [Pan : Aakpy 1276 C] I.T.O. Ward-2(2), Siliguri…………..……………………………...……..……………………..…. Respondent Siliguri Appearances By: Shri Subhash Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri S.M. Tauheed, Addl. Cit, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 12Th, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 21St, 2018 O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap :-

section 269T. 3. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition of Rs.29, 71,828/- made by the A.O. in respect of amount received as gifts wrongly treating the same as unexplained cash credit u/s 68

SOUTHERN ROAD CARRIERS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 13(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.691/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Southern Road Carriers Ltd..........................................................……Appellant P-9, New Cit Road, Central, Kolkata-700073. [Pan: Aaccs8837N] Vs. Dcit, Circle-13(2), Kolkata...........................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Pransukha, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 15, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 11, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 03.11.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Cit(A) Has Erred Both In Law & On Facts By Confirming The Addition Of Rs.1,06,74,500/- Made By Assessing Officer For Treating Share Capital Issued As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68. 2. That The Cit(A) Has Like-Wise Erred Both The Law & On Facts By Confirming The Addition Made By Assessing Officer Amounting To Rs.14,60,000/- Being Differential Value Of Sale Consideration & Stamp Duty Value Of The Property Sold.

section 269T of the Act. Thereafter, the said shareholders paid back the amount through cheque towards share application money. That there was no doubt about the identity and creditworthiness of the shareholders. That the shareholders were close relatives of the Directors of the assessee company, who have duly confirmed the transactions. However, the Assessing Officer did not get satisfied

RAJESH KUMAR DALMIA,SURAT vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrarajesh Kumar Dalmia, Income Tax Officer, B-3, Flat No. 803, Nandni One, Ward 6(1), Kolkata, Vs Vesu, Surat - 395007 P-7, Chowringhee Square, (Pan: Amxpd1909Q) Kolkata - 700069 (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 of the Act and taxing the same in the hands of the appellant. I am further fortified by the following decisions: a. Kale Khan Mohd. Hanif vs CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) dated 08/02/1963 where the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "It is well established that the onus of proving the source