ALLAHABAD BANK,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal No

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68,139 being provision for intangible asset in computing “Book Profit” under section 115JB.” 4. First of all, Ld. AR of assessee has not pressed for adjudcitation ground No. 7, hence, same is dismissed as not pressed. 5. The first and second ground relate to the common issue raised by assessee in this appeal is that

M/S PREMIER IRRIGATION ADRITEC (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

36(1)(va) to deposit the amounts retained by it or deducted by it from the employee's income, unless the condition that it is deposited on or before the due date, is correct and justified. The non-obstante clause has to be understood in the context of the entire provision of Section 43B which is to ensure timely

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

DALMIA LAMINATORS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 7(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

ii. That the ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in law as well as in facts of the case by confirming the addition made by the ld. AO who treated the increase in share capital and premium amounting to Rs. 1,60,00,000/- as undisclosed income u/s 68 of the I.T. Act. iii. That the appellant craves leave to add/or amend

M/S BALAJI EXPORT CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 29, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey] Assessment Year: 2019-20

ii) amend section 43B of the Act by inserting Explanation 5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause

DESANA POLY PLASTIC INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 34, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

ii) amend section 43B of the Act by inserting Explanation 5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause

LANSHEE PRODUCTS AND SERVICES LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 7(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vp (Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

ii) amend section 43B of the Act by inserting Explanation 5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause

LANSHEE PRODUCTS AND SERVICES LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 7(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vp (Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

ii) amend section 43B of the Act by inserting Explanation 5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause

LANSHEE PRODUCTS AND SERVICES LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 7(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vp (Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

ii) amend section 43B of the Act by inserting Explanation 5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause

FLOWLINE SERVICES PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-12(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am]

ii) amend section 43B of the Act by inserting Explanation 5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause

MICROVIEWS INFOSYSTEMS PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, C.P.C., BANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

ii) amend section 43B of the Act by inserting Explanation 5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause

M/S JAIKISHANDASS MALL JUTE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. CPC, , BANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

ii) amend section 43B of the Act by inserting Explanation 5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause

BOROJALINGAH TEA COMPA NY ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-34(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey] I.T.A. No. 465/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Borojalingah Tea Company Vs. Ito, Ward-34(1), Kolkata (Pan: Aacfb7772N) Appellant Respondent

ii) amend section 43B of the Act by inserting Explanation 5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause

RAGHVENDRA PRATAP SINGH,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CPC, BANGAORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar] I.T.A. No. 556/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2019-20 Raghvendra Pratap Singh Vs. Dcit (Cpc) Bangalore (Pan: Amaps3456L) Appellant Respondent

ii) amend section 43B of the Act by inserting Explanation 5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause

HINDUSTAN FIBRE GLASS WORKS,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar] I.T.A. No. 608/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2018-19 Hindustan Fibre Glass Works Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bengaluru (Pan: Aabfh6597G) Appellant Respondent

ii) amend section 43B of the Act by inserting Explanation 5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause

M/S JAYANTA FOOD PRODUCTS,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey] I.T.A. Nos. 383 & 384/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20

ii) amend section 43B of the Act by inserting Explanation 5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause

KALPAJEET BASU MALLIK,KOLKATA vs. CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar] I.T.A. No. 582/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2019-20

ii) amend section 43B of the Act by inserting Explanation 5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause

ORANGE SECURITAS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.O. CIR. 6(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar] I.T.A. No. 490/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2017-18 Orange Securities Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.O., Circle-6(2), Kolkata (Pan: Aaaco 8239 L) Appellant Respondent

ii) amend section 43B of the Act by inserting Explanation 5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause