ALISHAN STEELS (P)LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 14A. 8. Ld. CIT(A)(NFAC) has erred in confirming addition of Rs.2,58,64,275/- of advances outstanding during previous financial year.” 4. In order to deal with the common ground in both the appeals, we take the facts from AY 2011-12. Assessee filed its return of income on 30.09.2011 reporting total income as loss

ALISHAN STEELS PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 14A. 8. Ld. CIT(A)(NFAC) has erred in confirming addition of Rs.2,58,64,275/- of advances outstanding during previous financial year.” 4. In order to deal with the common ground in both the appeals, we take the facts from AY 2011-12. Assessee filed its return of income on 30.09.2011 reporting total income as loss

ITO, WARD - 36(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI RAKESH AGARWAL, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2008/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

68 is a charging section and it applies when the assessee's explanation with respect to the cash credit is rejected as being unsatisfactory and also where the assessee does not render any explanation. The Assessing Officer is to state how he has formed his opinion that the explanation is unsatisfactory. Hon'ble Courts have held that

DCIT, CC-3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. TULSYAN AND SONS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

68 of the Act without looking into the facts of the case where the assessee had failed to discharge its onus to establish identity & creditworthiness of cash creditors and genuineness of the transaction in respect of alleged sum received by the assessee during the assessment year in question. Also the departmental inspectors could not serve the notice to the parties

M/S. SUPRABHA INDUSTRIES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(3), , KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.2372&2373/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/S Suprabha Industries Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata Continental Chambers, 15A Hemant Basu Sarani, Kolkata "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcs9389J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 19/10/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: These Assessee’S Two Appeals For Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - 21, Kolkata’S Separate Orders Both Dated 27.08.2018 Passed In Case No.10527&10538/Dcit,Cc-4(3)/Cit(A)- 21/Kol/2016-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’; Respectively. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files/Records Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Identical Sole Substantive Grievance In Both These Appeals Challenges Correctness Of The Lower Authorities’ Action Imposing Section 271Aab Penalties Of Rs.44,93,035/- @30% Of The Alleged Undisclosed Income Of Rs.1,49,76,784/- Each By The Assessing Officer In His Twin Separate Orders; Both Dated 28.09.16 & Restricted To 10% Each In The Cit(A)’S Lower Appellate Discussion Reading As Under:

68 to 69D of the Act but the term has been specifically defined for the purposes of levy of penalty Section 271AAB of the Act. 5. The two sub-clauses (i) & (ii) contained in clause (c) of Explanation 271AAB which define 'undisclosed income' can be further broken two parts; sub-clause (i) of clause (c) of Section 271AAB

M/S. SUPRABHA INDUSTRIES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(3), , KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.2372&2373/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/S Suprabha Industries Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata Continental Chambers, 15A Hemant Basu Sarani, Kolkata "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcs9389J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 19/10/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: These Assessee’S Two Appeals For Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - 21, Kolkata’S Separate Orders Both Dated 27.08.2018 Passed In Case No.10527&10538/Dcit,Cc-4(3)/Cit(A)- 21/Kol/2016-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’; Respectively. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files/Records Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Identical Sole Substantive Grievance In Both These Appeals Challenges Correctness Of The Lower Authorities’ Action Imposing Section 271Aab Penalties Of Rs.44,93,035/- @30% Of The Alleged Undisclosed Income Of Rs.1,49,76,784/- Each By The Assessing Officer In His Twin Separate Orders; Both Dated 28.09.16 & Restricted To 10% Each In The Cit(A)’S Lower Appellate Discussion Reading As Under:

68 to 69D of the Act but the term has been specifically defined for the purposes of levy of penalty Section 271AAB of the Act. 5. The two sub-clauses (i) & (ii) contained in clause (c) of Explanation 271AAB which define 'undisclosed income' can be further broken two parts; sub-clause (i) of clause (c) of Section 271AAB

ENKAY TRAFFIN (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 133(6) ng the notice under section 133(6) of the Act. (vi) We note from a perusal of the paper book pages (vi) We note from a perusal of the paper book pages-2, 160 to 184 the 2, 160 to 184 the details of share applicant details of share applicant M/s. Shivashiv Dealcom

NEXTGEN VYAPAAR ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 133(6) of the Act. section 133(6) of the Act. (v) We note from a perusal of the paper book (v) We note from a perusal of the paper book-2, pages 138 to 159 the 2, pages 138 to 159 the details of share applicant details of share applicant M/s. Shivarshi Construction

M/S ARROWSPACE TRADECOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-10(2), KOLKATA

In the result, in light of the discussion made above, this appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 68 of the Act and thereby confirm the impugned addition.” 3.1. Considering the similarity of facts and the discussion in the case of Grafton Merchant Pvt. Ltd. (supra), and the relative similarity of facts, it is held that the impugned amount has been rightly added by the ld. AO. 4. In the result, in light of the discussion

BENI PRASAD LAHOTI,HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

68,765/- section 139 Returned income under Rs. 8,76,720/- section 153A Income disclosed under Rs. 7,50,000/- section 132(4) Addition under section Rs. 1,37,648/- 14A Assessed income Rs.10,14,368/- Penalty proceedings were initiated in respect of the additional income disclosed under section 132(4) of Rs.7

BENI PRASAD LAHOTI,HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

68,765/- section 139 Returned income under Rs. 8,76,720/- section 153A Income disclosed under Rs. 7,50,000/- section 132(4) Addition under section Rs. 1,37,648/- 14A Assessed income Rs.10,14,368/- Penalty proceedings were initiated in respect of the additional income disclosed under section 132(4) of Rs.7

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-30(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SANJEEV KEJRIWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 2190/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward-30(3), Kolkata -Vs- Sanjeev Kejriwal [Pan: Aevpk 7424 H ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 68 3 Sanjeev Kejriwal A.Yr. 2008-09 per se are not at all applicable in the facts of the instant case as it pertains to trade receipts and not loan receipts or share capital receipts. The assessee also placed reliance on certain decisions in support of these contentions. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition by observing

ACIT, CIRCLE - 35, , KOLKATA vs. M/S. KWALITY STEEL PROCESSORS, KOLKATA

Accordingly appeal of the assessee dismissed

68,2,275/- during the subject A.Y 2015-16, and that this figure was also substantially high in the earlier A.Y 2-14-15, being Rs. 8,70,12,823/ -, and this surely indicates the capacity of the Loan Creditor. The appellant also refer decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench I) in the case of Golden Remedies

AMIT KHEMKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

275 would not be applicable to order passed under section 271B. Hence, ground no. 1 of the appeal is rejected. 7. Ground Nos. 2 and 3 were not pressed and therefore they are dismissed as not pressed. 8. Regarding ground No. 4, it is submitted that the assessing officer did not consider the fact that the assessee throughout

AMIT KHEMKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

275 would not be applicable to order passed under section 271B. Hence, ground no. 1 of the appeal is rejected. 7. Ground Nos. 2 and 3 were not pressed and therefore they are dismissed as not pressed. 8. Regarding ground No. 4, it is submitted that the assessing officer did not consider the fact that the assessee throughout

ACITCC-3(2), KOLKATA vs. SMT. SAVITRI DEVI AGARWAL, BILASPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

275 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty leviable under the proposed new section. For the purposes of this section it has been proposed to define undisclosed income so as to mean- (i) any income of the specified previous years represented, either wholly or partly, by any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable

ACIT CC-3(2),, KOLKATA vs. SRI ARJUN LAL AGARWAL , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

275 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty leviable under the proposed new section. For the purposes of this section it has been proposed to define undisclosed income so as to mean- (i) any income of the specified previous years represented, either wholly or partly, by any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable

ACIT CC-3(2) , KOLKATA vs. SMT. KALAWATI DEVI AGARWAL, BILASPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

275 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty leviable under the proposed new section. For the purposes of this section it has been proposed to define undisclosed income so as to mean- (i) any income of the specified previous years represented, either wholly or partly, by any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable