ITO WD-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SAPPHIRE GLOBAL FINANCE (P) LTD, KOLKATA

68 of the Act. During the year under consideration,\ni)\nThe appellant disposed of investments amounting to Rs.11,00,000/- to M/s.\nKhetan Tracon Pvt. Ltd. of Room No. 3A, Ashirwad Appts, 171/12, Roy Bahadur Road,\nKolkata 700034 having PAN: AABCK9871F. It received total Rs.17,00,000 from the\nsaid party during the year itself and refunded the balance amount

MANISH AGARWAL,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 1721/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Manish Agarwal..................................…………………………............................................Appellant Vill. Kushaigachi, Po. Dcc, Hooghly – 712 310 [Pan : Afupa 0340 L] Ito, Ward 1(2)..…………………………………………………………....................................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, Khadinamore, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 101 Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 14, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 18, 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 6, Kolkata Dated 28.07.2016. 2. Ground Nos. 1, 3B, 3C & 4B Raised By The Assessee In This Appeal Are Not Pressed By The Learned Counsel For The Assessee At The Time Of Hearing Before Us. The Same Are Accordingly Dismissed As Not Pressed.

3a is accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purpose. 11. The issue involved in ground no 4a relates to the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- made by the A.O. and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) on account of gift claimed to be received by the assessee by treating the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68

M/S. SKIPPER PLASTICS LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWS AS RAMA CONSULTANCY CO. (1993) PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

68 and this position 7 I.T.A. No. 282/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Skipper Plastics Ltd. clearly evident from the assessment order is not disputed even by the learned DR. 7. Moreover, a perusal of the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer also shows that the reason for non-compliance to the notices issued under section

RAMAN KUMAR MALHOTRA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-36(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

section 68 as well as other additions as made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals). I, therefore, delete the said additions and allow partly this appeal filed by the assessee. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on October 21, 2016. (P.M. Jagtap

M/S. LUPIN VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 9(3), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is upheld in its entirety. 8.1 Conclusion ITA No.: 3103/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Lupin Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. After careful consideration of the facts on record, the contents of the assessment order, and the absence of any credible submission or evidence by the appellant, I am of the considered view

NEW TEA CO. LTD. ,2018-19 vs. PCIT-2, KOL, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Sections 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act dated 25.03.2021. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds: “1. a) For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Act is bad in law and is liable

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI BALAJI MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

section 68 of the Act is not applicable on the trade advance received from the party which was subsequently refunded back. The AO has made addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- pertaining to M/s SSSTC u/s 68 merely relying on report of investigation wing that assessee is the beneficiary of the sum received as trade advance. It is relevant

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI BALAJI MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

section 68 of the Act is not applicable on the trade advance received from the party which was subsequently refunded back. The AO has made addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- pertaining to M/s SSSTC u/s 68 merely relying on report of investigation wing that assessee is the beneficiary of the sum received as trade advance. It is relevant

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI BALAJI MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

section 68 of the Act is not applicable on the trade advance received from the party which was subsequently refunded back. The AO has made addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- pertaining to M/s SSSTC u/s 68 merely relying on report of investigation wing that assessee is the beneficiary of the sum received as trade advance. It is relevant

ITO WD-3(1), KOLKATA vs. SAPPHIRE GLOBAL FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

68 of the Act. During the year under consideration, i) The appellant disposed of investments amounting to Rs.11,00,000/- to M/s. Khetan Tracon Pvt. Ltd. of Room No. 3A, Ashirwad Appts, 171/12, Roy Bahadur Road, Kolkata – 700034 having PAN: AABCK9871F. It received total Rs.17,00,000 from the said party during the year itself and refunded the balance amount

ITO WD 3(1), KOLKATA vs. SAPPHIRE GLOBAL FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

68 of the Act. During the year under consideration, i) The appellant disposed of investments amounting to Rs.11,00,000/- to M/s. Khetan Tracon Pvt. Ltd. of Room No. 3A, Ashirwad Appts, 171/12, Roy Bahadur Road, Kolkata – 700034 having PAN: AABCK9871F. It received total Rs.17,00,000 from the said party during the year itself and refunded the balance amount

RAGINI VERMA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR- 49(1),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

3A, Naya Patty Road, Kolkata-700055. The assessee has submitted that the client is dealing in sarees which were exempt from VAT, Excise duty etc. The assessee has0 furnished the copy of cash book along with other documents. The AO observed that the cash purchases were Rs. 20,44,042/- whereas the total sales were

YASH MOVERS (P) LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-7(2), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

68 of the Act when other evidence relating to the raising of share capital qua the share subscriber were available on record as furnished by the assessee and also cross verified by the assessing officer pursuant to the enquiry conducted in response to the notices issued under Section 133(6) of the Act. The learned Tribunal also referred

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MCNALLY BHARATI ENGINEERING CO.LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No.100/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2006-07

68. We have heard the submissions of the ld. DR and the ld. Counsel for the assessee. The ld. DR relied on the order of AO. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue has been decided in favour of assessee by Hon’ble Kolkata Tribunal in assessee’s own case in A.Y.2003-04 vide order dated

MIND SPORTS LEAGUE(P)LTD,GOA vs. PCIT, KOLKATA, RANGE-5, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

section 143(3A) and 143(3B), Ld. AO has thoroughly examined the claim of the assessee towards sales promotion expenses and various other expenses which have been discussed resulting into certain disallowance made u/s. 40(a)(ib). Subsequently, Ld. Pr. CIT on examination of assessment order and assessment record observed that in Form 26AS, assessee has received professional charges

M/S VINAYAK FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

3A, 3RD FLOOR, ARRJAVV PARK KOLKATA-700025\n\n3. Reasons was provided vide show cause notice dated 20.01.2022. The reasons is\nreproduced as under.\n1. In the instant case the original retum of income for the A.Y 2013-14 was filed by the\nassessee company on 26.03.2014 declaring the total income at Rs.8,38,320/-. The retum was\nprocessed

BENGAL SHELTER HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Bengal Shelter Housing Development Limited C/O Subash Agarwal & Ito Ward, 2(1), Associates, Advocates Aaykar Bhavan, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson P-7, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Kolkata-700 069 Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata 700069 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccb4289R Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2024

section 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 01. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: - Bengal Shelter Housing Development Ltd; A.Y. 2018-19 “1. For that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in passing the order ex-parte without providing opportunity of hearing. 2. For that on the facts

BHARAT SECURITY AGENCY,KOLKATA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

68,583/- being employers' contribution under Section 43B of the Act. CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding that the assessee had made the payment before the due date" of filing of the return, which was a fact apparent from the record - that if the employees' contribution is not deposited by the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts