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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

68 of the Act. In the ld. CIT(A)’s order we find that the details of share allotment, the moneys received in the form of share application money/premium and ld. CIT(A) has mentioned by preparing chart in this context as under: “SDR MEGHNATH INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. DETAILS OF SHARE ALLOTMENT DURING F.Y. 2011-12 FACE VALUE OF SHARES

M/S ADVENT COMMODITIES PVT. LTD.,ITO, WARD-4(3) vs. ITO, WARD-4(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

68 of the Act. The fresh share capital issued and subscribed to the extent of this value of share of ₹10/- was accepted as genuine by the AO and no addition made. The assessee carried the matter in appeal. 2.2. The first appellate authority called for a remand report. During the remand proceedings, fresh summons were issued to the share

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]

293 of paper book) and furnished the relevant details viz., bank statements etc., which fact the AO has acknowledged in the reassessment order. We also note that the AO during the reassessment proceedings issued summons u/s. 131 of the Act to the directors of all 7 Intent Dealers Pvt. Ltd., AY- 2012-13 shareholder companies and acknowledged in the reassessment

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

DCIT, CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S EIH LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

section 40(a)(ia) do not apply.” (A copy of CIT(A) order for A.Y.2006-07 is attached as Annexure 15) Further, Reliance in this connection is placed on the decision of SHERATON INTERNATIONAL INC vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX reported in (2007) 293 ITR (A.T.) 68

EIH LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

section 40(a)(ia) do not apply.” (A copy of CIT(A) order for A.Y.2006-07 is attached as Annexure 15) Further, Reliance in this connection is placed on the decision of SHERATON INTERNATIONAL INC vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX reported in (2007) 293 ITR (A.T.) 68

MANSAROVAR FERROUS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 13(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

293 as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act on irrelevant considerations and presumptions which are based

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

MUNDHRA CONSTRUCTION P LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-10(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad, Accountant Member Shri Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member)

68 of the Act for which he placed I.T.A. No. 807/Kol/2024 Mundhra Construction Pvt. Ltd. reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) wherein it was held as under: "In this case the assessee had given the names and addresses of the alleged creditors

SUNIL AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shris.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Dr.A.L. Saini, Hon’Ble

section 68 of the Act, specifically mentioned that neither did he give her name Sunil Agarwal A.Y. 10-11 to the assessee nor alleged that he or the assessee deposited cash in her bank account. 7. That the Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, erred in disallowing the sum of Rs.1,41,360 by wrongly alleging that thee

ITO, WARD-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S DANIEL COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.645/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata………..…….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Daniel Commodities Pvt. Ltd…..........…..........................…..…..... Respondent 6, Lyons Range, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Aaccd9344F] C.O. 4/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.645/Kol/2020) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Daniel Commodities Pvt. Ltd…………….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector 6, Lyons Range, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Aaccd9344F] Vs Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata …………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 23, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 07, 2024

293 ITR 1(SC)’, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that where the Commissioner has sought to revise only that part of the assessment order, the subject- matter of which had nothing to do with that item of income, in such a case, doctrine of merger did not apply and that the period of limitation would commence

PREM PRASAD,MALDA vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), MALDA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

68 of the Act. Then, the learned CIT (A) was duty- bound to reduce the same from the amount of sales as the same does not represent the sale but unexplained cash credit. As such, the same amount cannot be held taxable twice as per the wish of the learned CIT (A). In our considered view the action

AERO DEALCOMM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-4(3), KOLKATA

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble) Assessment Years: 2009-10 Aereo Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd………….………...........................................................……………….…......Appellant C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates 2, Garstin Place 2Nd Floor Suite No. 203 Off Hare Street Kolkata West Bengal – 700 001 [Pan : Aacca 5934 G] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Kolkata…………………..……………….............….……....…....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate & Shri M. Jhawar, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 26Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

68, read with section , read with section 147, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Accommodation entry) (Accommodation entry) - Assessment year 2008-09 - Information was received from Information was received from 6 Assessment Years: 2009-10 Aereo Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd. investigation wing that assessee investigation wing that assessee-company was a beneficiary of accommodation

ACIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S R. K. COMMERCIAL LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1330/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2007-08)

section 68 of the Act to the tune of Rs. 12,86,00,032/-. 7. Aggrieved by the stand so taken by the Assessing Officer, the Assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has deleted the addition. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before

TITAN ENGINEERING CO. PVT. LTD., ,DURGAPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(2), KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 Titan Engineering Co. Pvt. V/S. Dcit, Circle-1(2), Ltd., Sanjibi Sarani, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, 7Th Floor, Chowringhee Durgapur-713210 [Pan No.Aabct 4321 K] Square, Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri H.V. Bhardwaj, Fca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shrishankar Halder, Jcit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 07-05-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 17-05-2019 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)-1, Kolkata’S Order Dated 05.09.2018 Passed In Case No.18161/Cit(A)-1/Kol./Cir.-1(2)/2015-16, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. Learned Counsel Representing Assessee Does Not Press For First Substantive Ground Raised In The Instant Appeal Challenging Liquidated Damage Disallowance Of ₹85,099/- Made In Both The Lower Proceedings Keeping In Mind Smallness Of The Amount. 3. This First Substantive Ground Is Rejected As Not Pressed. 4. Next Comes The Estimated Ad Hoc Disallowance Of Site Expense Amounting To ₹4,74,241/- In Both The Lower Proceedings. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reads As Follows:-

Section 68 of the Act, where any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year, the same may explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source thereof is, in the opinion of the assessing officer, not satisfactory." In respect of the reliance by the AIR on the decision of the Apex

PBN CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,SILIGURI vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 3(1),, SILIGURI

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

68 of the Act Rs. 89,55,000/- v) Unexplained money receipt from M/s Darjeeling Cement Pvt. Ltd. Siliguri Rs. 69,95,500/- vi) Addition of share application money with high premium Rs. 78,00,000/- vii) Interest on penalty Rs. 13,711/- viii) ROC Fee Rs. 17,650/- ix) Expenses not properly vouched Rs. 58,71,442/- Total

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SURESH KUMAR BANTHIA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross\nObjection of the assessee is partly allowed

68 with respect to ledger submitted by the\nassessee indicating receipt of entries from shell companies operated by 'J' and 'N';\namount which was disclosed to be the commission paid for the alleged entries; and,\nan amount paid to the assessee for investment in penny stock. Just because parallel\nproceedings cannot be conducted for the same year under consideration

NATURE COMMERCIAL PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Section 68 of the Act despite the fact that the onus cast upon the\nassessee was duly discharged and no deficiency in the submissions of the assessee was\nenumerated in the assessment order.\n5. That the Ld. AO grossly erred in law and in facts of the case in not accepting identity,\ncreditworthiness and genuineness of subscribers of share