JEWEL INDIA JEWELLERS ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR. 4(4), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

482/- and after deducting the same from the disclosure made of 2.00 crores, the reaming of Rs. 1,09,39,517/- was treated as income qua which the assessee has not disclosed the nature and source of income and came to the conclusion that such income has to be treated as unexplained income u/s 68 read with Section

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

68 of the Act. The Revenue filed an appeal against the said judgement and the same was dismissed by the HonTjle Supreme Court in ITO vs. V.R. Global Energy (P) Ltd. [2020] 113 taxmann.com 31 (SC). The decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in case of CIT vs. Ritu Anurag Agarwal

M/S BRIDHI DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD.,AGRA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

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

482/- u/s. 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act 3 Bridhi Distributors Pvt. Ltd., AY 2012-13 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Second assessment/reassessment order’). In respect of the Second assessment/reassessment order dated 17.06.2016 the Ld. Pr. CIT-4 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Second Ld. Pr. CIT’) proposed to exercise revisional jurisdiction by issuing Show Cause

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND SPONGE AND IRON PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Section 68 of the Act, three ingredients were necessary. Firstly identity\nof the parties to the transaction of loan, second is the creditworthiness of such parties\nand thirdly the genuineness of the transaction. It was submitted in vain that neither of\nthe ingredients were satisfied.\n5. As discussed above, since the requisite material was furnished by assessee showing\nthe

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND SPONGE AND IRON PRIVATE LIMITED , PATNA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Section 68 of the Act, three ingredients were necessary. Firstly identity\nof the parties to the transaction of loan, second is the creditworthiness of such parties\nand thirdly the genuineness of the transaction. It was submitted in vain that neither of\nthe ingredients were satisfied.\n5. As discussed above, since the requisite material was furnished by assessee showing\nthe

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND CEMENT & ROOFINGS PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Section 68 of the Act, three ingredients were necessary. Firstly identity\nof the parties to the transaction of loan, second is the creditworthiness of such parties\nand thirdly the genuineness of the transaction. It was submitted in vain that neither of\nthe ingredients were satisfied.\n5. As discussed above, since the requisite material was furnished by assessee showing\nthe

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND CEMENT & ROOFINGS PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

Section 68 of the Act, three ingredients were necessary. Firstly identity of the parties to the transaction of loan, second is the creditworthiness of such parties and thirdly the genuineness of the transaction. It was submitted in vain that neither of the ingredients were satisfied. 5. As discussed above, since the requisite material was furnished by assessee showing

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND CEMENT & ROOFINGS PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

Section 68 of the Act, three ingredients were necessary. Firstly identity of the parties to the transaction of loan, second is the creditworthiness of such parties and thirdly the genuineness of the transaction. It was submitted in vain that neither of the ingredients were satisfied. 5. As discussed above, since the requisite material was furnished by assessee showing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND SPONGE AND IRON PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

Section 68 of the Act, three ingredients were necessary. Firstly identity of the parties to the transaction of loan, second is the creditworthiness of such parties and thirdly the genuineness of the transaction. It was submitted in vain that neither of the ingredients were satisfied. 5. As discussed above, since the requisite material was furnished by assessee showing

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND CEMENT & ROOFINGS PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

Section 68 of the Act, three ingredients were necessary. Firstly identity of the parties to the transaction of loan, second is the creditworthiness of such parties and thirdly the genuineness of the transaction. It was submitted in vain that neither of the ingredients were satisfied. 5. As discussed above, since the requisite material was furnished by assessee showing

GOPAL & SONS HUF,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 32(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

Section 68 of the Act, three ingredients were necessary. Firstly identity of the parties to the transaction of loan, second is the creditworthiness of such parties and thirdly the genuineness of the transaction. It was submitted in vain that neither of the ingredients were satisfied. 5. As discussed above, since the requisite material was furnished by assessee showing

BALMUKUND SPONGE & IRON PVT. LTD.,,PATNA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3),, KOLKATA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Section 68 of the Act, three ingredients were necessary. Firstly identity\nof the parties to the transaction of loan, second is the creditworthiness of such parties\nand thirdly the genuineness of the transaction. It was submitted in vain that neither of\nthe ingredients were satisfied.\n5. As discussed above, since the requisite material was furnished by assessee showing\nthe

BALMUKUND SPONGE & IRON PVT. LTD.,,PATNA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3),, KOLKATA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Section 68 of the Act, three ingredients were necessary. Firstly identity\nof the parties to the transaction of loan, second is the creditworthiness of such parties\nand thirdly the genuineness of the transaction. It was submitted in vain that neither of\nthe ingredients were satisfied.\n5. As discussed above, since the requisite material was furnished by assessee showing\nthe

BALMUKUND SPONGE & IRON PVT. LTD.,,PATNA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3),, KOLKATA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Section 68 of the Act, three ingredients were necessary. Firstly identity\nof the parties to the transaction of loan, second is the creditworthiness of such parties\nand thirdly the genuineness of the transaction. It was submitted in vain that neither of\nthe ingredients were satisfied.\n5. As discussed above, since the requisite material was furnished by assessee showing\nthe

BALMUKUND CEMENT & ROOFINGS PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3),, KOLKATA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Section 68 of the Act, three ingredients were necessary. Firstly identity\nof the parties to the transaction of loan, second is the creditworthiness of such parties\nand thirdly the genuineness of the transaction. It was submitted in vain that neither of\nthe ingredients were satisfied.\n5. As discussed above, since the requisite material was furnished by assessee showing\nthe

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND SPONGE AND IRON PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Section 68 of the Act, three ingredients were necessary. Firstly identity\nof the parties to the transaction of loan, second is the creditworthiness of such parties\nand thirdly the genuineness of the transaction. It was submitted in vain that neither of\nthe ingredients were satisfied.\n5. As discussed above, since the requisite material was furnished by assessee showing\nthe

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND LEASE FIN PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Section 68 of the Act, three ingredients were necessary. Firstly identity\nof the parties to the transaction of loan, second is the creditworthiness of such parties\nand thirdly the genuineness of the transaction. It was submitted in vain that neither of\nthe ingredients were satisfied.\n5. As discussed above, since the requisite material was furnished by assessee showing\nthe

BALMUKUND SPONGE & IRON PVT. LTD.,,PATNA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3),, KOLKATA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Section 68 of the Act, three ingredients were necessary. Firstly identity\nof the parties to the transaction of loan, second is the creditworthiness of such parties\nand thirdly the genuineness of the transaction. It was submitted in vain that neither of\nthe ingredients were satisfied.\n5. As discussed above, since the requisite material was furnished by assessee showing\nthe