ITO, WARD-12(1), KOLKATA vs. TRINETRA MERCHANTS(P) LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.570/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, Ward-12(1), Kolkata .......….…..…....................................................….. Appellant Vs. Trinetra Merchants (P) Ltd...............................................................…… …. Respondent 14A, Clive Row, 1St Floor, Dalhousie, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aabct7086M] Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Partha Pratim Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 12, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 03, 2022 आदेश / Order मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद"य "वारा / Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 13.07.2020 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 10.03.2015. 2. Registry Has Informed That The Appeal Is Time Barred By 343 Days. Condonation Application Has Been Filed By The Revenue. Perusal Of The Same Shows That The Delay Was On Account Of Covid-19 Restrictions. We, Therefore, In View Of The Judgment Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court Vide Miscellaneous Application No. 21 Of 2022 Find That The Limitation Period In Filing Appeal Between 15.03.2020 Till

Section 68 of the act. In the facts of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) completely ignored this aspect, thus has erred in giving relief to the assessee. 6. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the assessee apart from placing reliance on the detailed findings of the ld. CIT(A) also took us through the written submissions filed

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PREMIER ROAD CARRIERS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A No. 960/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2000-01 D.C.I.T., Circle-8, -Vs.- M/S. Premier Road Carriers Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcr8968E] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri S.S.Alam, Addl. Cit For The Respondent : Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2016. Date Of Pronouncement : 2.12.2016. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

4A) of'the lncome Tax Act normal presumption is that the contains of the said exercise book are true and belongs to Sri Bhanaram Gupta. ITA No.960/Kol/2011-M/s. Premier Road Carriers Ltd. A.Y.2000-01 3 However, since the receipt of Rs. 2 crores by way of private placement of shares are found not to be genuine transactions and the ultimate beneficiary

ITO, WARD - 39(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI RAJESH KUMAR GOEL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

4A) to the Commissioner made it quite clear that the hundi loans were genuine and the assessee’s willingness to get assessed on the basis of the peak credit was only because it had become difficult for the assessee to prove the genuineness of the credits in view of the conditions created by the denial by the hundi bankers

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3, ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. M/S. SANJAY TRANSPORT AGENCY, BURDWAN

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

section 68 of the Act in the absence of creditworthiness of these parties and made addition. We find no reason to sustain the same, as the very basis is not doubted by the AO, and assessee has discharged its onus by filing all the details before the AO. Accordingly, we confirm the order of CIT(A) and this issue

ATUL TANTIA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR.-3(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 492/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Atul Tantia Deputy Commissioner Of Jc-25, Gpt Centre Income Tax – Central Circle - Vs 3(1), Kolkata Sector-Iii Salt Lake City Kolkata - 700098 [Pan : Abmpt7504K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

Section 68 on the basis of loose papers found during search in this case indicating assessee's transaction with a company, when assesse not only denied having any dealing with the said company but also produced all necessary details for AO to make necessary inquiries and a letter from director of that company confirming that the said company

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S IMAX INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed while the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kolkata Zone) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

68. As noted by the Assessing Officer in the assessment orders, the assessee-company, however, submitted incomplete and inaccurate particulars, on the basis of which necessary enquiry to ascertain the genuineness of the transactions could not be done. He also found that cash was deposited in their Bank accounts by the share subscriber companies just before making the payment

SREEMA MAHILA SAMITY,NADIA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-NADIA, NADIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

68,803/- to the total income of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee challenged the assessment order in respect of addition made on account of interest income before the CIT-A. Before him the assessee reiterated the same submissions as made before the AO. The CIT-A opined that the facts of the present case are similar to the facts

DINESH KUMAR SINGHANIA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 34(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

68 of the Act I.T.A. No.: 1151/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dinesh Kumar Singhania. to which the assessee responded. Thereafter, the Ld. AO added the cash balance to the returned income u/s 69A of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who issued six notices for hearing but as there

M/S. OLIVER SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. CIT, KOLKATA - III, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am Assessment Year:2009-10 M/S. Oliver Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 4, Rattan Sarkar Garden Street, Kolkata-Iii, Kolkata-700007. Aayakar Bhawan, Rep. By None P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. Pan : Aabco 0972 H Rep. By Shri Niraj Kumar, Cit Assessment Year:2010-11 M/S. Arissan Venture Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax, 3Rd Floor, Insignia Tower, En-1, Kolkata-2, Sector-V, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700091. Aayakar Bhawan, Rep. By None P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. Pan : Aaecm 7213 N Rep. By Niraj Kumar, Cit Assessment Year:2009-10 M/S. Vishakha Power Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax, 3Rd Floor, Insignia Tower, En-1, Kolkata-2, Sector-V, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700091. Aayakar Bhawan, Rep. By None P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. Pan : Aaecm 8809 N Rep. By Shri Niraj Kumar, Cit Assessment Year:2009-10 M/S. Trinetra Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Room No.309, 3Rd Floor, 7, Grant Kolkata-I, Kolkata Lane, Lalbazar, Kolkata-700012. Aayakar Bhawan, Rep. By None P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. Pan : Aadct 0248 H Rep. By Shri Niraj Kumar, Cit Assessment Year:2010-11 M/S. Intellectual Securities (P). Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Room No.418A, 4Th Floor, Marshall Kolkata-Ii

4A, Aswininagar, Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata-700059. P-7, Chowringhee Square, Rep. by None Kolkata – 700 069. Rep. by Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT PAN : AABCF 2995 H (Appellants) (Respondents) Date of Hearing : 09.03.2017. Date of Pronouncement : 22.03.2017. ITA Nos.134.545-547.556.602.826.855&956/Kol/2015 ORDER Per Bench Through these appeals, different assessees assail the correctness of separate orders passed by the Commissioners of Income

M/S KALPTARU GOODS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. CIT, KOLKATA-II, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am Assessment Year:2009-10 M/S. Kalptaru Goods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 6, Biplabi Rash Behari Basu Road, Kolkata-Ii, First Floor, Kolkata-700001. Aayakar Bhawan, Rep. By None P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. Pan : Aadck 3633 K Rep. By Shri Niraj Kumar, Cit Assessment Year:2009-10 M/S. Everlink Distributors Pvt. Ltd Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 16, Mangoe Lane, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-1, Kolkata-700001. Aayakar Bhawan, Rep. By None P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. Pan : Aacce 1268 R Rep. By Niraj Kumar, Cit Assessment Year:2009-10 Zodiac Vincom Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 4, B.B/.D.Bag,(E) Stephen House, 5Th Kolkata-1I, Floor, Room No.77, Kolakta-700001. Aayakar Bhawan, Rep. By None P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. Pan : Aaacz 3537 E Rep. By Shri Niraj Kumar, Cit Assessment Year:2010-11 Tulsi Management Services (P)Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1/1, Meredath Street, Ground Floor, Kolkata-1, Kolkata-700072. Aayakar Bhawan, Rep. By None P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. Pan : Aadct 1973 F Rep. By Shri Niraj Kumar, Cit Assessment Year:2010-11 Classic Barter Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 4A, Acre Road, Kolkata-2, P.S.Beniapukur Kolkata-700017. Aayakar Bhawan, Rep. By None P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. Pan : Aabcc 1038 L Rep. By Shri Niraj Kumar, Cit (Appellants) (Respondents)

4A, Acre Road, Kolkata-2, P.S.Beniapukur Kolkata-700017. Aayakar Bhawan, Rep. by None P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. PAN : AABCC 1038 L Rep. by Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT (Appellants) (Respondents) Date of Hearing : 06.03.2017. Date of Pronouncement : 06.03.2017. ORDER Per Bench Through these appeals, different assessees assail the correctness of separate orders passed by the Commissioners of Income

I.T.O WD - 8(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SPML INFRA LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

4A) was introduced and inserted by the Finance Act 1995 with effect from 1.4.1996. Since then the legislative scheme has been liberalized progressively in the interest of aiding the growth of infrastructure. 3.2.2. It was further explained that in the background of the legislative intent behind insertion of sub-section (4) as discussed above, if the explanation is interpreted

M/S SMPL INFRA LTD ( EASTWHILE M/S SUBHAS PROJECTS & MARKETING LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CC - XXVIII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

4A) was introduced and inserted by the Finance Act 1995 with effect from 1.4.1996. Since then the legislative scheme has been liberalized progressively in the interest of aiding the growth of infrastructure. 3.2.2. It was further explained that in the background of the legislative intent behind insertion of sub-section (4) as discussed above, if the explanation is interpreted

M/S. HEAVEN MERCANTILE PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 4(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Heaven Mercantile Pvt. Ltd.....................................................................……………….…......Appellant 410, Swaika Centre 4A, Pollock Street 4Th Floor Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aacch 0611 B] Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Kolkata…...........................................................……….…....Respondent

4A, Pollock Street 4th Floor Kolkata – 700 001 [PAN : AACCH 0611 B] Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Kolkata…...........................................................……….…....Respondent Appearances by: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri A.K. Singh, CIT Sr. D/R, appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : February 12th, 2019 Date of pronouncing the order : March 29th

M/S. JAGADAMBA DEALCOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2008-09 M/S Jgadamba Dealcom V/S. Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd., 3/1A, Alipore Ward-6(2), Aayakar Park Road, 4Th Floor, Bhawan, P-7, Suite-4A, Kolkata-27 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aabcj 9653 Q] Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant G. Hangshing, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 06-06-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 13-06-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2008-09 Arises Against Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata’S Order Dated 09.03.2017 Passed In Case No.298/Cit(A)-6/Kol/2015-16, Ex Parte Affirming Assessing Officer’S Action Adding Unexplained Share Capital Amount Of ₹7,65,00,000/- In Assessment Order Dated 19.03.2014 Involving Proceedings U/S. 144/263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. We Come To The Relevant Facts Pertaining To Above Sole Issue Of Section 68 Unexplained Share Capital Addition Of ₹7,65,00,000/- Lakh. This Assessee Is A Company Engaged In Investment & Share Trading Business. It Filed Its Return On 25.03.2009 Stating Nil Income. The Same Stood Processed. The Assessing Officer Thereafter Formed Reasons To Believe That Assessee’S

4A, Kolkata-27 Chowringhee Square, [PAN No.AABCJ 9653 Q] Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant G. Hangshing, CIT-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 06-06-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 13-06-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश

NATWEST MARKETS PLC,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION - 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Asst. Commissioner Of Natwest Markets Plc Income Tax 907, Regus, 9Th Floor, Ps Arcadia, 4A, Abanindra Nath Aaykar Bhavan, 2 Nd Floor, Vs. Thakur Sarani, Kolkata, West 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata, Bengal-700016 West Bengal 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacct8020E Assessee By : Shri Parcy Pardiwalla, Ar Revenue By : Shri Praveen Kishore, Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024 O R D E R

4A, Abanindra Nath Aaykar Bhavan, 2 nd Floor, Vs. Thakur Sarani, Kolkata, West 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata, Bengal-700016 West Bengal 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AACCT8020E Assessee by : Shri Parcy Pardiwalla, AR Revenue by : Shri Praveen Kishore, DR Date of hearing: 26.09.2024 Date of pronouncement : 27.11.2024 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal

ALLAHABAD BANK,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal No

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68,139 being provision for intangible asset in computing “Book Profit” under section 115JB.” 4. First of all, Ld. AR of assessee has not pressed for adjudcitation ground No. 7, hence, same is dismissed as not pressed. 5. The first and second ground relate to the common issue raised by assessee in this appeal is that

ALLAHABAD BANK,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal No

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68,139 being provision for intangible asset in computing “Book Profit” under section 115JB.” 4. First of all, Ld. AR of assessee has not pressed for adjudcitation ground No. 7, hence, same is dismissed as not pressed. 5. The first and second ground relate to the common issue raised by assessee in this appeal is that

SHRI SAHADEB PAIK ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, KOLKATA - 17, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.768/Kol/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

4a) That, the Ld. Pr. CIT erred in having alleged that the A.O. omitted to consider the loan of Rs.32,00,000taken from BSPL as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act in spite of the fact that sum of Rs.20lakhs paid through cheque to BSPL by mistake was returned by the company by cheque on the sameday