M/S DALIA INVESTMENT PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

430/- as income from other sources on the ground that the assessee failed to furnish the names and complete addresses of the person to whom such agricultural goods were sold. 17.1 However the Ld CIT(A) worked out the agricultural income of Rs. 20,000 per acre and accordingly treated the sum of Rs.2.40 lakh as agricultural income

RAM SWAROOP BAJAJ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] I.T.A No. 99/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Ram Swaroop Bajaj . –Vs- Ito, Ward-36(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aefpb 2300 D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 of the Act. She submitted that quoting a wrong section is not fatal to the assessment of undisclosed income. On the year of taxability, she submitted that the assessee had offered this amount to tax this year and hence he cannot plead otherwise. 7. In reply the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had actually

GOURI DAS MAITY,PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2, HALDIA, PURBA MEDINIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

430 [PAN : ACRPD 6703 E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,...............................................................Respondent Ward-2, Haldia, Basudevpur, P.O. Khanjanchak, Purba Medinipur-721 602 Appearances by: Shri V.N. Dutta, Advocate, for the assessee Shri Prabal Choudhury, JCIT, for the Department Nate of concluding the hearing : December 10, 2015 Date of pronouncing the order : December 16, 2015 O R D E R Per Shri

AVR HOTELS & RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,PANIHATI vs. ITO, WARD 14(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes wherein the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarmaavr Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito, Ward-14(1), Kolkata 141, T N Banerjee Road, Panihati, 24 Parganas, Wb 700114. Pan No. : Aafca3334H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) Sa No.14/Kol/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Avr Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito, Ward-14(1), Kolkata 141, T N Banerjee Road, Panihati, 24 Parganas, Wb 700114. Pan No. : Aafca3334H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

430 was treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68, read with section 115BBE of the Act. Further

PULAK SAMANTA,PURBA BARDHAMAN vs. ITO, WARD 2(3), , BURDWAN

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Am Shri Pulak Samanta Ito, Ward 2(3), Burdwan S/O Sushil Samanta, Kharga Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, Karanda, P.S. Memari, Dist. Kachari Road, Court Compound, Vs. Purba Bardhaman, Pin-713149 Burdwan-713101, West Bengal West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Benps8092A Assessee By : Shri Suvo Chakroborthy, Ar Revenue By : Shri Monalisha Pal Mukherjee, Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.11.2025

430. The case was selected for scrutiny, and statutory notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. The assessee disclosed total sales of Shri Pulak Samanta; 2017-18 ₹2,85,98,369 and miscellaneous receipts of ₹2,44,450, declaring a gross profit of ₹8,35,485 and net profit

SUPERDEAL RESOURCES PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 5(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Superdeal Resources Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Wad 5(1), Kolkata C/O Subash Agarwal & Ito, Ward 5(1), Associates, Advocates Sidha Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite Vs. Chowringhee Square, 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 Kolkata-70069 West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs7472E Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.09.2025

section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Superdeal Resources Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 2022-23 03. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 26.03.2025, declaring total income of ₹1,94,410/-, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The case of the assessee

ITO, WD-9(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S GOLDSTAR TRACOM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Madhumita Roy) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2), Kolkata...........................................................…..…….………..Appellant M/S. Goldstar Tracom Pvt. Ltd…..………………………………………..……………...…….…............Respondent 4, Synagougue Street Burrabazar Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan: Aadcg 8045 K] Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 12Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 9Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

430/- as on 31/03/2011. The company has total gross receipts of Rs. 9,89,89,572/- i.e. (Interest on loans of Rs. 6,54,012/- & Sales of Rs. 9,83,35,560/-) as per Profit & Loss A/c placed at page 110 of paper book. There is no allegation of AO that deposit of cash in bank accounts of share subscribers

NEEL KAMAL AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-35(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 Neel Kamal Agarwal V/S. Income Tax Officer, Mr. M.L. Jain & Ward-35(2), Aayakar Associates, 9/12 Lal Bazar Bhawan, Poorva, Stret, Block-E, 4Th Floor, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700001 E.M. Bypass, [Pan No.Acipa 1982 B] Kolaktata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Miraj D Shah, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 06-02-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 28-02-2019 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)-10 Kolkata’S Order Dated 29.09.2016 Passed In Case No.49/Cit(A)-10/W-35(2)/15-16/Kol, Involving Proceedings U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Former Substantive Ground Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Adding His Sundry Credits Of ₹1,10,17,324/- As Unexplained In The Course Of Assessment As Upheld In The Lower Appellate Discussion As Follows:- “05. Grounds No. 3 Relates To The Action Of The Ld. Ao In Adding Rs. 1,10,17,324/- Under Head 'Unexplained Credit-Sundry Creditor'. The Matter Has Been Dealt By The Ld. A.O As Under:

section 68 - Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed addition - On instant appeal, it was seen that Assessing Officer went to root of issue; made inquiries and brought on record that brought forward alleged sundry creditors and current year's creditors were not genuine. Further, assessee never tried to reconcile difference of brought forward balances nor produced any bills of purchase

SATYAM SUREKA ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the different assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey] I.T.(S.S).A. No. 13 /Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 Satyam Sureka Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-3(3), Kolkata

section 115BBE by the Ld. AO. v) That the appellant craves to leave, add, amend or adduce any of the grounds of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings. i) That the order passed u/s 250 is bad in law as well as on facts of the case. ii) The Hon’ble CIT(A) erred

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

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

section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment\nof the Legislature.\n11. In this behalf the observations of this Court made in Sree Krishna Electricals v. State\nof Tamil Nadu[2009] 23 VST 249 as regards the penalty are apposite. In the\naforementioned decision which pertained to the penalty proceedings in Tamil Nadu\nGeneral Sales

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

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

section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment\nof the Legislature.\n11. In this behalf the observations of this Court made in Sree Krishna Electricals v. State\nof Tamil Nadu[2009] 23 VST 249 as regards the penalty are apposite. In the\naforementioned decision which pertained to the penalty proceedings in Tamil Nadu\nGeneral Sales

ADITI MITRA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 37(3), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 25/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Aditi Mitra,…………………………………...……Appellant Flat No. 401, Block No. 12, Ujaas, The Condoville, 69, S.K. Deb Road, Kolkata-700048, West Bengal [Pan:Aczpb6415H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………....Respondent Ward-37(3), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001

section 68 of Income Tax Act. Finally, ld. Assessing Officer assessed the total taxable income of the assessee at Rs.31,30,430

LAXMIDHAN TRADELINK PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 68 of the Act, the Assessing Officer was justified in adding back the amounts to the Assessee's income. 16. The Appeal filed by the Appellant - Revenue is allowed. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and the law laid down above, the judgment of the High Court, the ITAT, and the CIT are hereby set-aside. The Order

SRI KUSH NAHATA ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 35(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1899/Kol/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Kush Nahata Vs. Ito, Ward-35(3), Kolkata

68 of the Act. 3. Brief facts qua the issue are that assessee ‘Shri Kush Nahata’ is an individual and filed his return of income for assessment year 2014-15 on 31.07.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 3,81,430/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny under CASS specifying the reasons as “Suspicious long term capital gain

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

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 was no nexus

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

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

section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature.\n11. In this behalf the observations of this Court made in Sree Krishna Electricals v. State of Tamil Nadu[2009] 23 VST 249 as regards the penalty are apposite. In the aforementioned decision which pertained to the penalty proceedings in Tamil Nadu General Sales

GHANSHYAM LALWANI,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 43(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee isallowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

430/- as differences in gross profit. 3. For that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in holding that the A.O. had correctly stated the income at Rs. 13,56,160/- considering the additions made to the total income. 4. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified

SARAJIT BHATTACHARYYA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-25(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)

430/- made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) on account of delayed payment of employees contribution to PF and ESI paid after the due dates prescribed in the relevant Statutes but before the due date of filing of return under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. I have heard