ITO, WARD-8(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S MANINYA COMFIN PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 79/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(1), M/S. Maninya Comfin Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Vs 9, Lal Bazar Street Lal Bazar Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcm5088N] अपीलाथ"/ (Assessee ) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vinod Kr. Jain, A/R Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/07/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/08/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 26/09/2018 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Made U/S. 68 Of Rs. 7,96,16,343/- On Account Of Unexplained Cash Credit In The Form Of Share Capital With Premium. 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Kol., Is Erred In Deleting The Addition Without Considering The Facts That The Source Of Fresh Share Capital Amount Was Not Properly Explained By The Assessee During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings & The Director Of The Assessee Company Did Not Appear Against Summon U/S. 131 To Substantiate The Claim Of The Assessee With Documentary Evidences. 3. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A), Failed To Appreciate That When The Sums Are Credited In The Books Of Accounts

section 68 of the I.T.Act, 1961, squarely applicable in this case with the perception of the Double Entry System of Accountancy. 6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made u/s. 68 of Rs. 6,85,77,614/- on account of unexplained unsecured loan as the credibility

ITO,WARD-9(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CHANAKYA STOCK BROKING SERVICES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07

section will not cover contracts for sale for goods [CIRCULAR NO.681/F.No.275/54/93-ITB (1994) 206 ITR (ST) 299]. There is no dispute that there was a contract which in the instant case amounted to contract for sale of goods and not works contract so to invite the mischief of s. 194C of the Act. In the instance case, there

M/S KHAZANA MERCHANDISE PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. C.I.T - II,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm Assessment Year:2008-09 M/S Khazana Mercahandise Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata-Ii, 2A, G.C.Avenue, Commerce Aayakarbhawan, House, 7Th Floor, Room No.3, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700013. Kolkata – 700 069. Pan : Aadck 2111 J (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. A.Y. 2013-14 and hence the CIT by means of impugned order u/s 263 could not have directed the AO to do so, is unsustainable. B. Failure of the AO to give a logical conclusion to the enquiry conducted by him gives power to the CIT to revise such assessment order, by holding

M/S VAIBHAVLAXMI FINANCIAL ADVISORY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-I, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm Assessment Year 2009-10

68 by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. A.Y. 2013-14 and hence the CIT by means of impugned order u/s 263 could not have directed the AO to do so, is unsustainable. B. Failure of the AO to give a logical conclusion to the enquiry conducted by him gives power to the CIT to revise such assessment order, by holding

M/S INTENT DEALERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-10(2), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

282 of paper book. Then the AO completed the original assessment by making an addition of Rs.10,41,21,420/- dated 25.03.2015 found placed at pages 284-288 of paper book. 8. Thereafter, we note that the original assessment of AO dated 25.03.2015 was set aside back

M/S DEVRAJ SALES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. CIT, KOLKATA-1I, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy& Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 975/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10

68 by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. A.Y. 2013-14 and hence the CIT by means of impugned order u/s 263 could not have directed the AO to do so, is unsustainable. B. Failure of the AO to give a logical conclusion to the enquiry conducted by him gives power to the CIT to revise such assessment order, by holding

RAMESHWAR COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE CIT KOLKATA-II,, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm Assessment Year:2008-09

68 by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. A.Y. 2013-14 and hence the CIT by means of impugned order u/s 263 could not have directed the AO to do so, is unsustainable. B. Failure of the AO to give a logical conclusion to the enquiry conducted by him gives power to the CIT to revise such assessment order, by holding

M/S AUROPLAS GOLD PVT LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S - RANISATI DEALCOMM PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. C.I.T KOLKATA - II, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm Assessment Year 2008-09 M/S. Auroplas Gold Pvt. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltd.,(Formerly Known As M/S. Kolkata-Ii, Ranisati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd.) C/O Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., Aayakarbhawan, 7, C.R.Avenue, Kolkata- P-7, Chowringhee Square, 700072. Kolkata – 700 069. Pan: Aaecr 0440 C Assessment Year 2008-09 Sheetal City Realtors Pvt. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltd., C/O Poddar & Kolkata-Ii, Aayakarbhawan, Associates, 9/12, Lalbazar Street, ‘Mercantile Building; P-7, Chowringhee Square, 1St Floor, Block-D, Kolkata- Kolkata – 700 069. 700001. Pan: Aabce 8664 L Assessment Year 2009-10 M/S. Subhdhan Commodities Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., C/O, Salarpuria Kolkata-Iii, Jajodia & Co., 7, Chittaranjan Avenue, 1

68 by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. A.Y. 2013-14 and hence the CIT by means of impugned order u/s 263 could not have directed the AO to do so, is unsustainable. B. Failure of the AO to give a logical conclusion to the enquiry conducted by him gives power to the CIT to revise such assessment order, by holding

BIRENDRANATH SAMANTA,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIR-2, BURDWAN, BURDWAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 227/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Birendra Nath Samanta Assistant Commissioner Of Anandapally, Sripally Vs Income Tax, Cirlce-2, Burdwan Burdwan - 713103 [Pan : Akaps8240C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 12/05/2022 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 253 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. In The Condonation Application, The Assessee Stated That An Affidavit & An Application Has Been Filed Wherein It Has Been Submitted That The Impugned Order Was Passed On 12/05/2022 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Ex-Parte. The Said Appellate Order Was Sent Through E- Mail At Debudan1975@Gmail.Com, Which Belonged To Shri Debabrata Dan, A Resident Of Burdwan & Looking After The Income Tax Matters

282 days in filing of the appeal. 3. On the other hand, the ld. D/R opposed the request of the assessee for condonation of delay. 4. We have duly considered the rival submissions and gone through the record carefully. 5. Sub-section 5 of Section 253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing

KRISHNA KUMAR KEDIA ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 30(1), , KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

68 of the Act. 1.2. The assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A) with his grievances against the Ld. AO but could not succeed fully since the matter was remanded back to the file of Ld. AO with the following decisions: 2 Krishna Kumar Kedia “6. I have gone through the grounds of appeal, statement of facts, assessment order

M/S. RBS CREDIT & FINANCIAL DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 3, 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. 1156/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Rbs Credit & Financial Development Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Pcit-3, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 3300 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 68 of the Act to the extent of Rs 2.79 crores which was even higher than the amount of Rs 1.3665 crores received by the assessee during the year in the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act. Hence it could be safely concluded that the addition made in the sum of Rs 2.79 crores towards share

ARYAVRAT VINTRADE PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-292), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 1261/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Aryavrat Vintrade Pvt. Ltd.,......................Appellant 14, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, 2Nd Floor, Room No. 17, Kolkata-700013 [Pan: Aahca4737A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-2(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 19, 2024

section 68 of the Income Tax Act where unexplained cash credits are required to be examined. For buttressing his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Ushakant N. Patel –vs.- CIT reported in 282

ADITI MITRA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 37(3), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 25/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Aditi Mitra,…………………………………...……Appellant Flat No. 401, Block No. 12, Ujaas, The Condoville, 69, S.K. Deb Road, Kolkata-700048, West Bengal [Pan:Aczpb6415H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………....Respondent Ward-37(3), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001

282 of the Income Tax Act read with Rules 127 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Finally, the assessee approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 251 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone

SAMRAT FINVESTORS PRIVATE LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD- 10(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 840/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Samrat Finvestors Private Limited Income Tax Officer, Ward – 10(2), 20/1, Maharshi Debendra Vs Kolkata 2Nd Floor, Room No. 13A Kolkata - 700007 [Pan : Aadcs4698G] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/R Revenue By : Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dt. 27/06/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee In The Instant Appeal Has Raised Two Effective Issues In The Various Grounds Before Us Which Are Summed Up As Under:- (I) That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.3,98,50,208/- As Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Alleged Bogus Loss In Share Trading & In F&O Segment. (Ii) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.11,58,944/- As Made By The Assessing

282 (Kol) of 2012, dated 2-3-2016] & CIT vs. Gagandeep 8 I.T.A. No. 840/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Samrat Finvestors Private Limited Infrastructure P. Ltd. (2017) 394 ITR 680 (Bom), to buttress his arguments on the issue that where an assessee has filed the evidences before the Assessing Officer concerning the transactions, and the Assessing Officer has not carried

NALANDA BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 763/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Nalanda Builders Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata 5, Sree Charan Sarani Vs Bally Howrah – 711201 (West Bengal) [Pan : Aabcn7736Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dt. 23/11/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Issues Raised In Ground Nos. 2 To 4 Is Against The Confirmation Of Addition As Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Difference Between The Value Taken By The Assessee & The Fair Market Value (Fmv) U/S 50C Of The Act. 3. The Facts In Brief Are That During The Year, The Assessee Sold Two Flats For An Aggregate Consideration Of Rs.3,00,00,000/- & Accordingly Addition Of Rs.3,26,37,314/- Was Made To The Income Of The Assessee. In 2

282 (Kol) of 2012, dated 2-3-2016] & CIT vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure P. Ltd. (2017) 394 ITR 680 (Bom), to buttress his arguments on the issue that where an assessee has filed the evidences before the Assessing Officer concerning the transactions, and the Assessing Officer has not carried out any further investigation or any enquiry into the issue

SEN FERRO ALLOYS (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 4(3), KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

282,675\n1,878,481\n1.445.927\n807,941\n108.259\n1,220,506\n17,873,721\nMangalmayte\n& 2,775,756\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\nAssociates\n2,775,756\nMrinmayee Trading 1,772,125\n1,980,000\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n3,752,125\n&Movers (P) Ltd.\nSen Ferro Alloys (P)\nD\n0\n0\n251

SEN FERRO ALLOYS (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

282,675\n1,878,481\n1.445.927\n807,941\n108.259\n1,220,506\n17,873,721\nMangalmayte\n&2,775,756\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\nAssociates\n2,775,756\nMrinmayee Trading\n1,772,125\n1,980,000\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n3,752,125\n&Movers (P) Ltd.\nSen Ferro Alloys (P)\n0\n0\n251

M/S QUANTAM SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ] I.T.A No. 1607/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S.Quantum Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward-4(4), Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaacq 1621 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.M.Surana, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri Niraj Kumar, Cit Date Of Hearing : 08.03.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2017. Order

68 by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. A.Y. 2013-14 and hence the CIT by means of impugned order u/s 263 could not have directed the AO to do so, is unsustainable. B. Failure of the AO to give a logical conclusion to the enquiry conducted by him gives power to the CIT to revise such assessment order, by holding