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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit being share application money and premium received by the assessee during the year. 2.1. The ld. Pr. CIT, Kolkata – 4, issued a showcause notice dt. 25/07/2016, proposing to revise the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 15/03/2015, by invoking his powers of revision

GARUD CREDIT & HOLDING PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 9(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 1270/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Garud Credit & Holding Pvt. Limited,.........Appellant D.J. Shah & Co., 2, Elgin Road, Kolkata-700020 [Pan: Aaacg9791P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-9(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Veekaas S. Sharma, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 06, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 01, 2023 O R D E R

section 263 of the Act. The assesese placed reliance on plethora of judgments and the same are referred below:- S.No. Title CITATION AUTHORITY Following Page No. of LPP Argument:- Mandatory to issue notice u/s 143(2) CBDT Circular No.549 dated -- 1 31.10.1989 PCIT vs. Oberoi (2018) 409 ITR 132 The Hon’ble High Court of 2 – 6 Hotels

DY. CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. FEMINA STOCK MANAGEMENT COMPANY LTD, KOLKATA

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 850/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Cit Central Circle – 1(4), Kolkata Femina Stock Management Company Vs Ltd. 5Th Floor, Room No. 2 P23/24, Radha Bazar Street Tea Board Kolkata - 700001 [Pan: Aaacf3689H] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/10/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata – 21, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 12/05/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 36 Days In Filing The Present Appeal By The Revenue. Petition For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record Explaining The Reasons. On Perusing The Same, We Are Convinced That The Revenue Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing This Appeal In Time. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Admit The Appeal For Hearing. 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

section 68 of the Act, for the impugned transactions in relation to the particular company present on those premises. These documents have already been elaborately listed earlier in this order, and included the PAN Card, IT acknowledgement, audited balance sheets and so on. It was also pointed out in the 1st remand report that the inspector did not find

DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. R.M. COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

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

Section 68 of the Act on account of corporate deposits of Rs. 1,42,95,699/ deposits of Rs. 1,42,95,699/-". 4. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has That on the facts and in circumstances of the case

DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. R.M. COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

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

Section 68 of the Act on account of corporate deposits of Rs. 1,42,95,699/ deposits of Rs. 1,42,95,699/-". 4. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has That on the facts and in circumstances of the case

KUNDU BROTHERS,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 2, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

302], wherein it was held that interest of compensatory nature paid in respect of trading liability being connected with delayed purchase payment does not fall within the category of “interest” as defined in section 2(28A) for the purpose of deduction of tax at source as prescribed under section 194A. Respectfully following the said decision of the Coordinate

D.C.I.T., CC - 3(1),, KOLKATA vs. GLIX SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the CO of the assessee and Revenue’s appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pardip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit Glix Securities Private Limited 110, Shanti Pally, 1St Floor 1, Grant Lane, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, Vs. Kolkata-700012, West Bengal Kolkata-700107, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcg1844J Co No. 66/Kol/2025 (Arising In Ita No. 1291/Kol/2025 For A.Y. 2011-12) Dcit Glix Securities Private Limited 110, Shanti Pally, 1St Floor 1, Grant Lane, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, Vs. Kolkata-700012, West Bengal Kolkata-700107, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Revenue By : Shri P.N. Barnwal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.12.2025

68 of the Act. 04. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) allowed the appeal of the assessee after taking into account the contention and submission of the assessee along with the evidences filed by the assessee called for the remand report from the ld. AO which was duly filed by the ld. AO before

BMW INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

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

68 of the Act for the second time. In our opinion, the same is against the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mahaveer Kumar Jain vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur [2018] 92 taxmann.com 340 (SC)/[2018] 255 Taxman 161 (SC)/[2018] 404\nPage 3\nITA Nos. 2585, 2586 & 2587/KOL/2025\nBMW Industries Limited

BMW INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

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

68 of the Act for the second time. In our opinion, the same\nis against the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of\nMahaveer Kumar Jain vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur [2018]\n92 taxmann.com 340 (SC)/[2018] 255 Taxman 161 (SC)/[2018] 404\nITR 738 (SC)/[2018] 302

RAGHVENDRA PRATAP SINGH,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 28, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

section 68. (b) For that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in holding that the addition made erroneously u/s 68 by the A.O. was liable to be added u/s 41(1) of the Act. 9.The appellant craves leave to add further grounds of appeal or alter the grounds at the time of hearing. 4. ld. Counsel

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EDUCO VENTURES PVT LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: the AO.

68 of the Act. 012. The facts in brief are that the assessee has raised unsecured loan of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- from Athak Investments Pvt. Ltd. in FY 2011-12 which was accepted as genuine by the AO during the regular assess- ments made in the earlier assessment years u/s 143(3) of the Act. The said loan

EDUCO VENTURES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: the AO.

68 of the Act. 012. The facts in brief are that the assessee has raised unsecured loan of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- from Athak Investments Pvt. Ltd. in FY 2011-12 which was accepted as genuine by the AO during the regular assess- ments made in the earlier assessment years u/s 143(3) of the Act. The said loan

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EDUCO VENTURES PVT LTD, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: the AO.

68 of the Act. 012. The facts in brief are that the assessee has raised unsecured loan of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- from Athak Investments Pvt. Ltd. in FY 2011-12 which was accepted as genuine by the AO during the regular assess- ments made in the earlier assessment years u/s 143(3) of the Act. The said loan

EDUCO VENTURES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: the AO.

68 of the Act. 012. The facts in brief are that the assessee has raised unsecured loan of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- from Athak Investments Pvt. Ltd. in FY 2011-12 which was accepted as genuine by the AO during the regular assess- ments made in the earlier assessment years u/s 143(3) of the Act. The said loan

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

302, 303, 304 & 306/KOL/2022 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 09-10, 10-11 & 2012-13 Beni Prasad Lahoti,...................................Appellant 12, Hardutt Rai Chamaria Road, Howrah-711101 [PAN: AAUPL9647E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,........Respondent Central Circle-2(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan (Poorva), 110, Shanti Palli, Kolkata-700107 Appearances by: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri

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

302, 303, 304 & 306/KOL/2022 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 09-10, 10-11 & 2012-13 Beni Prasad Lahoti,...................................Appellant 12, Hardutt Rai Chamaria Road, Howrah-711101 [PAN: AAUPL9647E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,........Respondent Central Circle-2(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan (Poorva), 110, Shanti Palli, Kolkata-700107 Appearances by: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri

BMW INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

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

68 of the Act for the second time. In our opinion, the same is against the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mahaveer Kumar Jain vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur [2018] 92 taxmann.com 340 (SC)/[2018] 255 Taxman 161 (SC)/[2018] 404 ITR 738 (SC)/[2018] 302

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLKATA vs. ALCOM INVESTMENT PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

302/-. An information received from the office of the DDIT(Inv.), Aurangabad on 25.03.2015, that the appellant company M/s. Alcom Investment Pvt. Ltd. had received some share capital and share premium during F.Y. 2007-08, which was held to be unexplained. As per the Balance Sheet and share allotment details of the said company which was earlier named Garima Vanijya