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

AC 224 (PC), held that : "What is capital expenditure and what is revenue are not eternal verities but must needs be flexible so as to respond to the changing economic realities of business. The expression 'asset or advantage of an enduring nature’ was evolved to emphasis the element of a sufficient degree of durability appropriate to the context

ENKAY TRAFFIN (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Ac The ld. Pr. CIT, issued a showcause notice to the assessee u/s 263 of the Act on 04/08/2016 proposing to revis 04/08/2016 proposing to revise of the original assessment order dt. 04/03/2015 u/s of the original assessment order dt. 04/03/2015 u/s 263 of the Act. Thereafter, t Thereafter, the ld. Pr. CIT passed an order

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

55,514/-, M/s Ranisati Coke Trading co. of ₹40,38,23,767/- and M/s Steel Centre of ₹10,78,87,644/-. The ld. AO discussed in detail the facts qua these parties and entry operators involved in providing accommodation entries. The ld. AO also noted that the entire purchases and sales were done through same commission agents and these were

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

55,514/-, M/s Ranisati Coke Trading co. of ₹40,38,23,767/- and M/s Steel Centre of ₹10,78,87,644/-. The ld. AO discussed in detail the facts qua these parties and entry operators involved in providing accommodation entries. The ld. AO also noted that the entire purchases and sales were done through same commission agents and these were

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

55,514/-, M/s Ranisati Coke Trading co. of ₹40,38,23,767/- and M/s Steel Centre of ₹10,78,87,644/-. The ld. AO discussed in detail the facts qua these parties and entry operators involved in providing accommodation entries. The ld. AO also noted that the entire purchases and sales were done through same commission agents and these were

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

55,514/-, M/s Ranisati Coke Trading co. of ₹40,38,23,767/- and M/s Steel Centre of ₹10,78,87,644/-. The ld. AO discussed in detail the facts qua these parties and entry operators involved in providing accommodation entries. The ld. AO also noted that the entire purchases and sales were done through same commission agents and these were

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

55,514/-, M/s Ranisati Coke Trading co. of ₹40,38,23,767/- and M/s Steel Centre of ₹10,78,87,644/-. The ld. AO discussed in detail the facts qua these parties and entry operators involved in providing accommodation entries. The ld. AO also noted that the entire purchases and sales were done through same commission agents and these were

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

55,514/-, M/s Ranisati Coke Trading\nco. of ₹40,38,23,767/- and M/s Steel Centre of ₹10,78,87,644/-. The\nId. AO discussed in detail the facts qua these parties and entry\noperators involved in providing accommodation entries. The Id. AO also\nnoted that the entire purchases and sales were done through same\ncommission agents and these were

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

55,514/-, M/s Ranisati Coke Trading\nco. of ₹40,38,23,767/- and M/s Steel Centre of ₹10,78,87,644/-. The\nId. AO discussed in detail the facts qua these parties and entry\noperators involved in providing accommodation entries. The Id. AO also\nnoted that the entire purchases and sales were done through same\ncommission agents and these were

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

55,514/-, M/s Ranisati Coke Trading\nco. of ₹40,38,23,767/- and M/s Steel Centre of ₹10,78,87,644/-. The\nId. AO discussed in detail the facts qua these parties and entry\noperators involved in providing accommodation entries. The Id. AO also\nnoted that the entire purchases and sales were done through same\ncommission agents and these were

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

55,514/-, M/s Ranisati Coke Trading\nco. of ₹40,38,23,767/- and M/s Steel Centre of ₹10,78,87,644/-. The\nId. AO discussed in detail the facts qua these parties and entry\noperators involved in providing accommodation entries. The Id. AO also\nnoted that the entire purchases and sales were done through same\ncommission agents and these were

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

55,514/-, M/s Ranisati Coke Trading\nco. of ₹40,38,23,767/- and M/s Steel Centre of ₹10,78,87,644/-. The\nId. AO discussed in detail the facts qua these parties and entry\noperators involved in providing accommodation entries. The Id. AO also\nnoted that the entire purchases and sales were done through same\ncommission agents and these were

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

55,514/-, M/s Ranisati Coke Trading\nco. of ₹40,38,23,767/- and M/s Steel Centre of ₹10,78,87,644/-. The\nId. AO discussed in detail the facts qua these parties and entry\noperators involved in providing accommodation entries. The Id. AO also\nnoted that the entire purchases and sales were done through same\ncommission agents and these were

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

55,514/-, M/s Ranisati Coke Trading\nco. of ₹40,38,23,767/- and M/s Steel Centre of ₹10,78,87,644/-. The\nId. AO discussed in detail the facts qua these parties and entry\noperators involved in providing accommodation entries. The Id. AO also\nnoted that the entire purchases and sales were done through same\ncommission agents and these were

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

55,514/-, M/s Ranisati Coke Trading\nco. of ₹40,38,23,767/- and M/s Steel Centre of ₹10,78,87,644/-. The\nId. AO discussed in detail the facts qua these parties and entry\noperators involved in providing accommodation entries. The Id. AO also\nnoted that the entire purchases and sales were done through same\ncommission agents and these were

ACIT, CIR-1, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR vs. SHRI RAKESH KUMAR CHOWDHURY, DURGAPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

55,68,735/-. As the appellant could not submit the corresponding deposit and withdrawals and no evidence was submitted in this regard,. The appellant took various pleas in this regard which he could not substantiate .Therefore, aforesaid of Rs. 825,000/- could not be explained which has been added by the A.O u/s. 68, hence, the same is confirmed

SHRI RAKESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY,DURGAPUR vs. ACIT, CIR-DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

55,68,735/-. As the appellant could not submit the corresponding deposit and withdrawals and no evidence was submitted in this regard,. The appellant took various pleas in this regard which he could not substantiate .Therefore, aforesaid of Rs. 825,000/- could not be explained which has been added by the A.O u/s. 68, hence, the same is confirmed

ANCHITA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-12(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 637/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-12(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 & I.T.A. No. 1067/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Pcit, Kolkata-2, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

55,00,000/-, which was added by the ld. Assessing Officer with the aid of section 68 in a re-assessment order passed under section 147 of the Income Tax Act. (c) The revenue authorities have erred in charging interests under sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act. 3. First we take the issue