DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

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

Section 68 of the Act, three ingredients were necessary. Firstly, identity of the parties to the transaction of loan, second is the creditworthiness of such parties and thirdly the genuineness of the transaction. It was submitted in vain that neither of the ingredients were satisfied. 5. As discussed above, since the requisite material was furnished by assessee showing

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

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

Section 68 of the Act, three ingredients were necessary. Firstly, identity of the parties to the transaction of loan, second is the creditworthiness of such parties and thirdly the genuineness of the transaction. It was submitted in vain that neither of the ingredients were satisfied. 5. As discussed above, since the requisite material was furnished by assessee showing

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

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

Section 68 of the Act, three ingredients were necessary. Firstly, identity of the parties to the transaction of loan, second is the creditworthiness of such parties and thirdly the genuineness of the transaction. It was submitted in vain that neither of the ingredients were satisfied. 5. As discussed above, since the requisite material was furnished by assessee showing

ROSHAN AGARWAL,SIKKIM vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2),, GANGTOK

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

section 68 of the Act and treated the same as unexplained cash credit. We observe that the assessee has filed some additional evidences before us which were not available before the before the AO as well as well as before the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee has filed an application for admission of these additional evidences comprising ITR Acknowledgement

ROSHAN AGARWAL,SIKKIM vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2),, GANGTOK

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

section 68 of the Act and treated the same as unexplained cash credit. We observe that the assessee has filed some additional evidences before us which were not available before the before the AO as well as well as before the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee has filed an application for admission of these additional evidences comprising ITR Acknowledgement

ROSHAN AGARWAL,SIKKIM vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2),, GANGTOK

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

section 68 of the Act and treated the same as unexplained cash credit. We observe that the assessee has filed some additional evidences before us which were not available before the before the AO as well as well as before the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee has filed an application for admission of these additional evidences comprising ITR Acknowledgement

ROSHAN AGARWAL,SIKKIM vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2),, GANGTOK

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

section 68 of the Act and treated the same as unexplained cash credit. We observe that the assessee has filed some additional evidences before us which were not available before the before the AO as well as well as before the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee has filed an application for admission of these additional evidences comprising ITR Acknowledgement

ROSHAN AGARWAL,SIKKIM vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2),, GANGTOK

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

section 68 of the Act and treated the same as unexplained cash credit. We observe that the assessee has filed some additional evidences before us which were not available before the before the AO as well as well as before the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee has filed an application for admission of these additional evidences comprising ITR Acknowledgement

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

DEWARS GARAGE LIMITED ,ACIT vs. A CIT-5 (1) , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

271D of the Act which is a sum equal to the amount of loan or deposit or a specified sum so taken or accepted. The purpose of clause 31(a) in Form 3CD is that the auditor who examines the books of account has to fill up the details of all the loans are deposits taken or accepted during

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. LAKHOTIA DIAGNOSTIC SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

68 of the Act in relation to the unsecured loans obtained and duly recorded by the appellant in his regular books of accounts. The AO has also made an addition of Rs. 3,43,127/- u/s 69C of the Act towards the disallowance of interest on unsecured loan. It is observed that both the unsecured loans and the interest thereon