BALHANUMAN COMMODEAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(4), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13

section 68 of the I. T. Act, the onus is on assessee to prove the above three criteria. Reliance is being place on the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT-vs- Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. [208 ITR 463] wherein it was observed that "It is for the assessee to prove the identity of the creditors

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

292 on 21.07.2011 25,00,000/- On 12.10.2011 Page 15 of 21 I.T.A. No.: 1088/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 SDR Meghnath Investments Private Limited. The appellant during appeal, has furnished the Balance Sheet, Bank Statement and ITR of the source of source, even though, since the amendment to section 68

INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S STANDARD LEATHER PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2010-11

68 cannot be applied. It was also held that the balances were brought forward balances and if the same were added on account of their non-genuineness, then also these amounts could not be added to the income of the assessee for the year under consideration as the question of genuineness thereof can be examined only in the year

M/S. BLUE LOTUS DESIGNERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-7(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 M/S Blue Lotus Designers V/S. Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd., 6/1C, Pranath Ward-7(4), Aayakar Chowdhury Lane, Bhawan, P-7, Kolkata-700 002 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaecb 9302 R] Kolkata-700 069 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Miraj D. Shah, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Supriyo Pal, Jcit, Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 07-11-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 08-01-2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16 Kolkata’S Order Dated 27.02.2017 Passed In Case No.755/Cit(A)-16/Kol/2015-16/W-7(4) Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

68 of the income tax Act as unexplained cash credit. The order is passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. ITA No.941/Kol/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 M/s Blue Lotus Designers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO Wd-7(4), Kol. Page 2 4 The AR has filed additional grounds of appeal. Same have been admitted. The crux of the grounds

M/S TOPLINK COMMERCE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 10(2), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13

section 68 was to be confirmed. Similarly, in the case of CIT Vs. Nipun Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. reported in [2013] 30 taxmann.com 292

ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S FASTFLOW SECURITIES (P) LTD, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 32/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata...................……….........…..........………...…… Appellant Vs. M/S. Fastflow Securities Pvt. Ltd.........…....…….......….....…...…....... Respondent 41, N.S. Kolkata - 70001 [Pan: Aabcf8361P] Appearances By: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri V.K. Jain, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 15Th, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 13Th, 2023 आदेश / Order Per Dr. Manish Borad, Accounant Member: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 02.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 35 (Thirty Five) Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Impugned Order By Ld. Cit(A) Is Dated 02/09/2020 Which Falls Within The Period Of Pandemic Of Covid-19. Petition For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record By Revenue Explaining The Reasons For Delay, Owing To Pandemic Of Covid-19 During That Time. We Note That The Period Of Delay Falls During The Time Of Pandemic Of I.T.A. No. 32/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Fastflow Securities Pvt. Ltd

292 (Delhi) [2013], Which spoke about the discharge of primary depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. The assessee and the assessing authority should adopt a reasonable approach. In that case even after providing several/sufficient opportunities, assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction and identity and creditworthiness of shareholders. Section 68

SHRI PALASH KUMAR KAPAS,HOWRAH vs. ACIT, CIR. 47, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 68 of the income tax Act 1961 as Unexplained money". The appellant stated that he is engaged in the business of service charges received for material handling and transporting under the proprietary business under the name and style of M/s. M.P. Enterprises. The Appellant further submitted as follows: - "In response to the show cause notice, dated 04/12/2019, your

RAMESHWAR FINVEST PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Central Circle 3(3) Rameshwar Finvest Private Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, Limited Santil Palli, 110, Eastern 111, Park Street, Kolkata- Metropolitan Bypass, Opposite Vs. 700016, West Bengal Ruby, Kasba, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcr1053N Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan & Ms. Puja Somani, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.12.2025

292 (Delhi), wherein it has been held that where the assessee failed to prove the identity and capacity of the subscriber companies to pay share application money. The amount so received was liable to be taxed u/s 68 of the Act. However, the said decision is distinguishable on facts vis-à-vis the facts of the present case

ONE STOP COMMOSALE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-6(3), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

section 68 of the I.T. Act, the onus is on assessee to prove the above three criteria. Reliance is being placed on the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT -vs- Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. [208 ITR 463] wherein it was observed that:- Further reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High

GULMOHAR DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-9(2), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2009-10

292 (Del) by Hon’ble Delhi High Court. Thereafter, without taking into account the material already on record in the form of report of the Inspector, details and documents furnished by the three investor companies in response to notices issued under section 133(6) as well as details and documents furnished by the assessee for the ten investor companies

SRI KALYAN SARKAR,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-54(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble A.M.)

292/- after making the various additions. 3. Against the said order passed by the AO under section 143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) and after Assessment Year: 2004-05 considering the submissions made by the assessee and the material available on record, the ld. CIT(A), found no merit

WINSHER VINIMAY PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 9(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13

292 (Delhi). The assessing officer relied upon the following judicial pronouncements for the applicability of section 68 and for the inference

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

68,00,000/- for F.Y-2009-10, 2010-11 Ind 2011-12 related to A.Y-2010-11, 2011-12 and\n2012-13 as share application money along with premium. In course of assessment proceedings as consequence of search\nseizure operation conducted upon this group notice u/s 142(1) were issued asking to prove the genuineness of the\ntransaction, genuineness of the identity

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. PHPL PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

section 3.1 of CBDT circular no. 5/2024 dated 15/03/2024, falling under the category of cases involving organized tax evasion including cases of bogus capital gain/loss through penny stocks and cases of accommodation entries. 4. The department craves the right to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. Brief facts

M/S. GOLDLINE DEALERS PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 9(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Rajesh Kumar

section 68 the onus is on the assessee to prove the three ingredients, i.e., identity and creditworthiness of the person from whom the monies were taken and the genuineness of the transaction. Reliance is being placed on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT-vs-Precision Finance Pvt Ltd [208 ITR 463] wherein

ITO, WD.9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S MAHARAJ VINCOM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata……………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…..…..... Respondent 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] C.O. No.6/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…....... Cross-Objector 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] Vs Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata …………..….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 07, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: This Appeal By The Revenue & Corresponding Cross-Objection By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 08.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

292 ITR 49 KLM Royal Dutch Airlines vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax wherein I.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021 & C.O. No.6/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd. it has been held that where an assessment has not been framed at all, it is not possible to posit that income has escaped assessment. It was held: “7. In our opinion section

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

NISHTHA VINCOM PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 6(3), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

68 of the Act and also made disallowance under section 14A of the Act. The Ld. AO relied upon the decisions in CIT v Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. 208 ITR 463 (Calcutta), CIT v Ruby Traders and Exporters Ltd. 134 Taxman 29 (Calcutta), CIT v Nipun Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. [2013] 30 Taxmann.com 292