DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. MAA ANNAPURNA TRANSPORT AGENCY LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkery, Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

68 of the Act by observing the following: “3.9 The total of unsecured loans received from bogus companies as mentioned in the table above is Rs. 2,85,67,315/-.The assessee has also repaid back unsecured loans during the year itself to these paper companies and has taken again afresh from the same company or the other paper companies

ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S VISHNU DISTRIBUTORS PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is devoid of any merit, hence dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 50/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-2013

Section 68; (2) The ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in entertaining the additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A

ITO, WARD - 5(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. COOLHUT MERCHANTS (P) LTD., , KOLKATA

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

section 68 of the Act. However, the ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the same and also in not examining the financials of the share subscriber companies and further and not providing an opportunity to the Assessing Officer to examine the fresh evidence filed before the ld. CIT(A), thereby violating Rule 46A

M/S.WINWOOD MARKETING PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-6(4), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 675/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 M/S. Winwood Marketing Pvt. Limited,………Appellant 9/12, Lal Bazar Street, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aabcw3528M] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-6(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Ankit Jalan, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Arun Kumar Meena, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: July 02, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: September 24, 2024 O R D E R

68 of the Income Tax Act by the ld. Assessing Officer. Out of ten share applicants, assessments were made under section 143(3) in the cases of seven (7) share applicants under section 143(3) in this very assessment year. Therefore, assessee wants to place on record copies of those assessment orders in order to prove the identity

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

sections": [ "68", "147", "143(3)", "263", "131", "46A", "56(2)(viib)" ], "issues": "Whether the addition on account of share

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2087/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

46A of the I.T..Rules,1962 for remitting the same before the AO for further investigation and enquiry. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in law in accepting the fact that the assessee had failed to satisfy the genuineness and authenticity of cash credit. 5. That

ITO,WARD-9(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CHANAKYA STOCK BROKING SERVICES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

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

section 68 – Tribunal, however, recorded a categorical finding of fact based on appreciation of materials and evidence on record that said amounts represented purchases made by assessee on credit; therefore, it held that provisions of section68 would not be attracted in such cases and, accordingly, it deleted additions- Whether, on facts, Tribunal was justified in deleting additions – Held

I.T.O.,WARD-1(4), KOLKATA vs. M/S GARIMA ADVISORY PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 68 would not operate on credits found in the books of the appellant relevant to previous assessment years which have not been explained. They would have to be taxed in the appropriate assessment years. The assessment order is therefore patently bad in law as addition on account of undisclosed cash credits have been made in the wrong assessment

NEHA DIWAN,HINDMOTOR vs. ITO WARD - 23(1), HOOGHLY

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 68 of the Act. Hence, the amount of ₹91,00,000/- should not be considered as unexplained and added to income. Thus, the assessee submits that the said assessment order dated 31.03.2022 passed by Ld. Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi u/s 147 of the Act, which was never served on the assessee determining the total

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

Section 68 of the Act, the Assessing Officer was justified in adding back the amounts to the income of the assessee and the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing relief to the assessee. 7. In absence of verification, Ld. CIT(A) should have remanded the matter to AO for fresh verification. Thus, he has violated the provisions

ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONEROF INCOMETAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2),KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA vs. M/S. ANUBANDH FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

68 of the Act. 13. Hence, on the reasons as mentioned in the appeal order of the Ld. CIT(A), when examined in the light of the recent judicial pronouncements on the issue, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) does not appear to be justified as despite noting that the AO has recorded that vide letter dated

M/S. VASUPUJYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

section 68 by treating the share premium amount as unexplained cash credit was challenged by the assessee in the appeal filed before the ld. CIT(Appeals). During the course of appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(Appeals), the following submissions in writing were made on behalf of the assessee in support of its case on this issue:- “During

ITO, WARD-6(1), KOLKATA vs. INSET COMMERCIAL & TRADING CO. (P) LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 68 of the Act, the Assessing Officer was justified in adding back the amounts to the income of the assessee and the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing relief to the assessee. 7. In absence of verification, Ld. CIT(A) should have remanded the matter to AO for fresh verification. Thus, he has violated the provisions

DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), KOLKATA vs. VIKRMA IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

46A of Income Tax Rules’1962. 6.1 As discussed above, the nature and source of funds of the lending entities remains unexplained and the credibility of the lending entities could not be established by the assessee, thus the nature and source of funds remains unexplained Therefore the addition made under section 68

DCIT, CC-2(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VIKRMA IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

46A of Income Tax Rules’1962. 6.1 As discussed above, the nature and source of funds of the lending entities remains unexplained and the credibility of the lending entities could not be established by the assessee, thus the nature and source of funds remains unexplained Therefore the addition made under section 68

ITO, WARD-6(1), KOLKATA vs. NATRAJ MERCANTILE (P) LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 68 of the Act, the Assessing Officer was justified in adding back the amounts to the income of the assessee and the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing relief to the assessee. 7. In absence of verification, Ld. CIT(A) should have remanded the matter to AO for fresh verification. Thus, he has violated the provisions

ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA vs. SHREEN HIRE PURCHASE (P) LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 22/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Income Tax Officer,................................Appellant Ward-5(1), Kolkata Aayakarbhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 -Vs.- Shreen Hire Purchase (P) Limited,...........Respondent 89, N.S. Road, Kolkata-700001 [Pan: Aamcs4023L] Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

section 68 of the Act, the Assessing Officer was justified in adding back the amounts to the income of the Assessee and the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing relief to the assessee. (7) That on the facts, in absence of verification, Ld. CIT(A) should have remanded the matter to A.O. for fresh verification. Thus

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VIGHNAHARTA VINCOM PRIVATE LIMITED, KARNATAKA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Vighnharta Vincom Private Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(1) Limited 5Th Floor, Room No. 5/12/2B, 94-G, Apartments No.1, 9 Th Cross Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, P-7, Road, Rajamahalvilas Extension Vs. Chowringhee Square, Sadashiva Nagar, Bangalore, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal Karnataka-560080, (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcv6413E Assessee By : Shri S.K. Pransukha, Ar Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Dung Dung, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.04.2026

Section 68 of the Act. Thus, the AO's order on this issue is not sustainable. Accordingly, the grounds No. 2 and 3 of the appeal are allowed.” 6. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that in this case the assessee the assessee during the year has issued equity shares

M/S ABHMAN DISTRIBUTOR PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

68 of the Act. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival submissions were heard and the record and the paper book filed and the submissions made have been examined. It was submitted before us that the assessee had challenged the legality as well as had sought relief