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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

364 35,00,000/- Page 366 Page 369 on 18.07.2011 15,00,000/- Page 371 On 29.10.2011 18. Bansal Projects P. Ltd. 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

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 68 of the Act, does not apply on the facts and circumstances of the case as it was barter/exchange of shares/investments. b) That the assessee has proved the creditworthiness and identity of the share applicant companies as well as the genuineness of the transactions. c) The shares in question were allotted through passing of journal entries only against

M/S. ACCESS GLOBAL LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

section 68 would not be applicable. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the present appeal is squarely covered by the ratio of the aforesaid order of the Hon`ble Madras High court, a copy of which was also placed before the Bench

DEPUTY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(4),KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA vs. PCJ FINVEST PRIVATE LIMITED, SILIGURI, WEST BENGAL

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 68 of the\nAct by addition of proviso was made subsequent to previous year relevant to\nthe subject assessment year 2012-13 and cannot be invoked.\"\n7.6 Further, it has to be noted that in order to prove the creditworthiness of a\ncompany, it is not always necessary to look only for these investments to have been\nmade

NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

68,24,795/- for the A.Y. 2015-16. In the instant case, the Assessing officer received the information as the assessee had received accommodation entry totaling of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- from M/s Primary Investment Consultants Pvt Ltd (Rs. 40,00,000/- + 25,00,000/- + 50,00,000/-), and Rs. 75,00,000/- received from M/s Mangal Chand Property

NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

68,24,795/- for the A.Y. 2015-16. In the instant case, the Assessing officer received the information as the assessee had received accommodation entry totaling of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- from M/s Primary Investment Consultants Pvt Ltd (Rs. 40,00,000/- + 25,00,000/- + 50,00,000/-), and Rs. 75,00,000/- received from M/s Mangal Chand Property

BLOOMING TRADELINK (P) LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 10(1) , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

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

Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Cash credits – Assessment year 1976- 77 – Partners of assessee-firm were members of one ‘J’ group running several businesses and industries – Accounts of assessee-firm showed that it had borrowed certain amount from GB, a proprietary concern of one of its partners JM, which was invested in purchase of shares

DIPAK PARUI,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, R-53, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr.A.L.Saini, Am ] Assessment Year : 2011-12

68 of the Act during course of lower appellate proceedings. There is no further issue that section 41(1) of the Act applies in the case of outstanding advances carried forward from the preceding assessment years which are either remitted as a case of cessation of liability in the impugned assessment year. We therefore find no merit

ITO, WARD-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SUNGLOW DEALCOM PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(1), Kolkata.……......……......………………..……….…….…............Appellant Vs. M/S. Sunglow Dealcom Private Limited……..........…………..……………….…...……..….…......Respondent 3Rd Floor 89, N.S. Road Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aadcs 7562 F]

Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Cash credits – Assessment year 1976- 77 – Partners of assessee-firm were members of one ‘J’ group running several businesses and industries – Accounts of assessee-firm showed that it had borrowed certain amount from GB, a proprietary concern of one of its partners JM, which was invested in purchase of shares

ACS TRADERS (P) LTD.,HOWRAH vs. PCIT-5, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

364-376) f) Bank statements reflecting transaction (seven) g) Copy of certificate of incorporation of share applicant (seven) h) Copy of source of fund 4 | P a g e M/s ACS Traders Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2010-11 i) Coy of audited Financial statement for FY 2009-10 (seven) 7. Still not satisfied by the submission of the aforesaid documents, according

ITO, WARD-45(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ASHOK TRADING COMPANY, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

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

68,894/- 2 M/s Mangalam Privahan Pvt. Ltd. 1,95,823/- ITA No.650/Kol/2012 A.Y. 2006-07 ITO Wd-45(2) Kol v. M/s Ashok Trading Co. Page 3 So the above expenses has been disallowed and added to the income of assessee. Before the Ld. CIT(A) , the assessee demonstrated that all the parties to whom the payments were made

ACIT,CIRCLE-36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2001-02 Acit, Cicle-36, Aayakar V/S. M/S Soorajmull Nagarmull, Bhawan, Poorva, 8Th 8 B.B.D. Bag (East), Floor, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-107 [Pan No.Aaaab 0601 N] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Md. Usman Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Akkal Dudhwewal, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 26-06-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 20-07-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2001-02 Calls Into Question Correctness Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata’S Order Dated 08.07.2016, Passed In Case No.142/Cit(A)/10/Cir-36/15-16/Kol, Reversing Assessing Officer’S Action Invoking Section 41(1) After Treating The Assessee’S Liability Amount Of ₹12,97,47,322/- To Be A Case Of Cessation Of Liability Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2015, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. 2. We Notice At The Outset That Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion On The Above Sole Issue Of Cessation Of Liability U/S 41(1)(A) Of The Act Reads As Follows:- “06. Decision: 1. I Have Carefully Considered The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Adding An Amount Of Rs.12,97,47,322/- U/S. 441(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, On Grounds That There Was A Cessation Of Liability On The Part Of The Assessee For The Impugned Amount & That Therefore It Would Constitute Part Of The Income Of The Assessee-Firm. It Is To Be Observed That This Is The 2Nd Round Of The Assessment Order For The A.Y 2001-02, And

68 but confirmed the addition by invoking Section 41(1) of the Act. On appeal the ITAT found that in the assessee's books, the amounts payable to the creditors were not written back but shown as outstanding to the parties and therefore Section 41(1) was held inapplicable. On appeal the High Court observed that to invoke

ITO, WARD - 3(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. C D STEEL PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013 14

68 but confirmed the addition by invoking Section 41(1) of the Act. On appeal the ITAT found that in the assessee's books, the amounts ITA No.1360/Kol/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 ITO Wd-3(3), Kol. Vs. M/s C.D. Steel Pvt. Ltd. Page 15 payable to the creditors were not written back but shown as outstanding to the parties

SHETH COMMERCIAL CO.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-14, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1100/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

68,630/-. Later on, Ld Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), had exercised his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. The ld PCIT, on perusal of the assessment records, noticed that the assessee had claimed loss on account of commodities (Currency Loss) of Rs. 41,25,364

M/S EXCEL ENGINEERS,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T (OSD) CIR - 51,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

section 194C of the Act warranting disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The ld AO is directed to delete this disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act in the sum of Rs. 68,49,395/-. Accordingly, the Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 3. The ld AR during the course of hearing stated

MILK MANTRA DAIRY (P) LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIR.-12(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Milk Mantra Dairy Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Pan: Aagcm1112L Income-Tax Vs. 7Th Floor, Z Tower, Patia Circle-12(1) Nandan Kanan Road, Kolkata. Bhubaneswar-751024. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Rajib Sharma & Shri Jai Somani, Ars Respondent By : Shri Sudipta Guha, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.07.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Cit(A)-4, Kolkata In Appeal No. 491/Cit(A)-4/16-17 Dated 03.02.2020 Against The Assessment Order Of Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”) Dated 13.01.2017. 2. There Is A Delay Of 73 Days In Filing The Present Appeal For Which A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record. From The Condonation Petition, We Note That The Present Appeal Ought To Have Been Filed On Or Before 17.04.2020 Which Falls During The Lockdown Period On Account Of Pandemic Of Covid-19. It Is Requested By The Assessee That Since It Is Prevented By Sufficient & Reasonable Cause, The Delay Of 73 Days In Filing The Appeal May Be Condoned & Appeal Be Admitted For Meritorious Disposal. We Have Heard Both The Sides & Find That Vide Order Dated 10.01.2022, Hon’Ble Supreme Court Has Directed That The Period From 15.03.2020 To 28.02.2022 Is To Be Excluded For The Purpose Of Computing The 2 Milk Mantra Dairy (P) Ltd. A.Y. 2013-14 Limitation Period During The Covid-19 Pandemic. Further, A Period Of 90 Days Is Allowed After 28.02.2022 Vide Same Order. Considering The Facts & The Explanation Of The Assessee, We Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Admit It For Adjudication.

364. Under the definition clause of this 7 Milk Mantra Dairy (P) Ltd. A.Y. 2013-14 agreement, there are certain definitions which are relevant to the issue in hand before us and are, therefore, reproduced for ease of reference:- “1.31 "Conversion" shall mean the conversion of CCDS into Conversion Shares in the manner as set out in this Agreement

ABC INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Abc India Limited Dcit, Circle 11(1) 40/8, Ballygunj, Circular Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Chowringhee Kolkata, West Bengal-700019 Square, Kolkata-700069 Vs. West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacca2035J Assessee By : Shri S.K. Pransukhka, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.04.2026

68,48,232/- in respect of Jagi Road Land. 7. The facts in brief are that the assessee bought a piece of land in Jagi Road for a consideration of ₹ 39,547/- on 19.02.1981. The fair market value as on 1.4.2001 was taken as cost of acquisition. The assessee obtained the valuation report from the approved registered valuer

ASHOKA EXPORTS ,HOWRAH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 46, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 1434/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ashoka Exports........….........……………………………………....………………..…………………….….Appellant 110/1, Dharamtalla Road Howrah-711 107 [Pan : Aagfa 3477 R] Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-46, Kolkata………....................…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri V.N. Dutta, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

364 ITR 158 (All)  Tanuj Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT [2016] 46 ITR (Trib) 420 (ITAT[Kolk])  Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Parle Plastics Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. [2011] 332 ITR 63 (Bom)  Bithal Das Daga vs. DCIT; ITA Nos. 540 & 541/Kol/2016; Assessment Year 2006-07; order dt. 11/08/2017 He further disputed the disallowance of interest of loan and also addition