GAURAV BAHETI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-29(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M. Jagtap] I.T.A. No. 1874/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Gaurav Baheti.............................………………………………………………...Appellant Flat No. 5A&B, Mangalam, 33, Raja Santosh Road Kolkata – 700 027 [Pan : Aggpb 5610 B] I.T.O., Ward 29(4).Kolkata...................………………………………………….Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, Dakshin, 2, Gariahat Road (S), Kolkata – 700 068 Appearances By: Shri Raj Kumar Patodi, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sailen Samaddar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 28, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 05, 2018 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) - 18 Kolkata Dated 04.07.2017 & The Solitary Issue Involved Therein Relates To The Addition Of Rs. 12,12,000/- Made By The A.O. & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) On Account Of Unexplained Cash Credit Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual Who Is An Employee Of M/S. Seacem Paints (I) Pvt. Ltd. He Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 07.01.2013 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 2,81,015/- Comprising Of The Salary Income & Income From Other Sources. As Per The Air Information Received By The A.O., The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits Aggregating To Rs. 12,12,000/- In His Bank Account Maintained With Axis Bank

section 68 and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) and allow this appeal of the assessee. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 5th January, 2018. (P.M. Jagtap) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 05/01/2018 Biswajit, Sr. PS Copy of order forwarded to: 1. Shri Gaurav Baheti, Flat No. 5A

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 of the Act is concerned. we find that it is an undisputed rather an admitted fact that the said cash gift was duly disclosed in the return of income and properly offered to tax under head income from other sources. The amount is clearly reflected in the computation of the total income forming part of the assessee

WEXFORD SALES PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. No. 1319/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 M/S. Wexford Sales Pvt. Limited,…………....Appellant 44, Ezra Street, Room No. 5A, Ground Floor, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aaacw2151P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………….………………Respondent Ward-6(4), Kolkata

5A, Ground Floor, Kolkata-700001 [PAN:AAACW2151P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………….………………Respondent Ward-6(4), Kolkata Appearances by: Shri V.N. Dubey, A.R., appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri Chandan Das, Addl. CIT (D.R.), appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing: February 27, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order: April

ACITCC-3(2), KOLKATA vs. SMT. SAVITRI DEVI AGARWAL, BILASPUR

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

68] NOTE-1: UNDER SECTION 271AAA NO PENALTY WAS TO BE IMPOSED ON INCOME ADMITTED U/S 132(4). HOWEVER, PENALTY U/S 271 AAB IS LEVIABLE EVEN IF INCOME IS ADMITTED U/S 132(4) AND SUCH PENALTY IS TO BE LEVIED ON THE AMOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME ADMITTED U/S 132(4).THEREFORE, PENALTY UNDER NEWLY SUBSTITUTED SECTION 271AAB SHOULD

ACIT CC-3(2),, KOLKATA vs. SRI ARJUN LAL AGARWAL , KOLKATA

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

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

68] NOTE-1: UNDER SECTION 271AAA NO PENALTY WAS TO BE IMPOSED ON INCOME ADMITTED U/S 132(4). HOWEVER, PENALTY U/S 271 AAB IS LEVIABLE EVEN IF INCOME IS ADMITTED U/S 132(4) AND SUCH PENALTY IS TO BE LEVIED ON THE AMOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME ADMITTED U/S 132(4).THEREFORE, PENALTY UNDER NEWLY SUBSTITUTED SECTION 271AAB SHOULD

ACIT CC-3(2) , KOLKATA vs. SMT. KALAWATI DEVI AGARWAL, BILASPUR

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

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

68] NOTE-1: UNDER SECTION 271AAA NO PENALTY WAS TO BE IMPOSED ON INCOME ADMITTED U/S 132(4). HOWEVER, PENALTY U/S 271 AAB IS LEVIABLE EVEN IF INCOME IS ADMITTED U/S 132(4) AND SUCH PENALTY IS TO BE LEVIED ON THE AMOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME ADMITTED U/S 132(4).THEREFORE, PENALTY UNDER NEWLY SUBSTITUTED SECTION 271AAB SHOULD

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. HARISH BAGLA, KOLKATA

In the result, the I.T. Appeal in ITA No

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) I.T.A. No. 2302/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & I.T.A. No. 2303/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-2(1), Kolkata…………….................………..…….......Appellant Vs. Harish Bagla…………………………......................................................................................…………Respondent Jaisalmer Building 6, Ashoka Road Kolkata – 700 027 [Pan : Abppb 7430 D] Appearances By: Shri D.S. Damle, Fca & Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Dr. P.K. Srihari, Cit, D/R Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 8Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 1St , 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

68,055/- was found from the residential premises and nothing was seized. From the locker of the assessee jewellery worth Rs.98,47,788/-, was found and nothing was seized. The Assessing Officer passed order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dt. 30/03/2015, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.13,78,48,400/-, i.e., the income declared

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. HARISH BAGLA, KOLKATA

In the result, the I.T. Appeal in ITA No

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) I.T.A. No. 2302/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & I.T.A. No. 2303/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-2(1), Kolkata…………….................………..…….......Appellant Vs. Harish Bagla…………………………......................................................................................…………Respondent Jaisalmer Building 6, Ashoka Road Kolkata – 700 027 [Pan : Abppb 7430 D] Appearances By: Shri D.S. Damle, Fca & Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Dr. P.K. Srihari, Cit, D/R Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 8Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 1St , 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

68,055/- was found from the residential premises and nothing was seized. From the locker of the assessee jewellery worth Rs.98,47,788/-, was found and nothing was seized. The Assessing Officer passed order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dt. 30/03/2015, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.13,78,48,400/-, i.e., the income declared

AJIT KUMAR PATNI,KOLKATA vs. IT0, WD-28(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

68 of the I.T. Act in respect of bogus long term capital gain. In view of the above order, ground no. 1 & 2 is hereby dismissed. 7. In ground no. 3, the assessee stated that the ld. CIT(A) erred in facts and in law charging interest u/s 234B

AJIT KUMAR PATNI,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-28(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

68 of the I.T. Act in respect of bogus long term capital gain. In view of the above order, ground no. 1 & 2 is hereby dismissed. 7. In ground no. 3, the assessee stated that the ld. CIT(A) erred in facts and in law charging interest u/s 234B

AHINSHA MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITOM WARD-4(3), KOLKATA

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

5A, Kolkata-700089.\nThe AO further noted that during the search and seizure operation\nstatement of various persons such as Shri Gopal Ranjan Saha Roy, an\nemployee of Santosh Kumar Shah, Sri Barun Nahar Roy, former director\nof Edward Supply Private Limited, Sri Viond Kumar Shah, a relative of Shri\nSantosh Kumar Shah and Shri Santosh Kumar Shah were recorded

NISHITH KUMAR JAIN,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T CC - XXVII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all four appeals of assessee are allowed

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

5A of Section 271(1)(c) as substituted by Finance (No.2) Act 2009 with retrospective effect. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the conclusion of Ld. CIT(A) that no immunity from penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is available for declaration u/s 132(4) is erroneous and arbitrary since Section 271AAA

AHINSHA MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-4(3), KOLKATA

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

5A, Kolkata-700089.\nThe AO further noted that during the search and seizure operation\nstatement of various persons such as Shri Gopal Ranjan Saha Roy, an\nemployee of Santosh Kumar Shah, Sri Barun Nahar Roy, former director\nof Edward Supply Private Limited, Sri Viond Kumar Shah, a relative of Shri\nSantosh Kumar Shah and Shri Santosh Kumar Shah were recorded

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BHAVYA MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals by the revenue are dismissed and cross-objections by the assessee are allowed

68 of the Act for the purpose of making additions on account of share capital.” 41. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Calcutta has time and again reiterated its view that the additions in case of the search assessments have to be made on the basis of incriminating material. Some of the recent decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional

STEWART HOLL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2331/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Stewart Holl (India) Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aaecs 3091 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,82,300 22.11.2011 59,47,074 7.2.2012 30,19,400 ---------------- 2,78,73,174 The assessee submitted that the said amount was made use of it in the same financial year on the basis of placing the orders within the financial year and an aggregate sum of Rs 2,63,01,843/- was also paid before 31.3.2012. The orders

DCIT, CIR-8, KOLKATA ,KOLKATA vs. OBEROI HOTELS PVT. LTD. , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri. Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

68 ITR 310 (Calcutta). We respectfully observe as follows: - 18 ITA 489/Kol /2005 ITA 1808/Kol /2006 ITA 1811/Kol /2006 Oberoi Hotels (P) Ltd The assessee-company was given a compensation for loss of managing agency of the managed company which was taken over by the State Government. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Conn held that taking over of the electric

OBEROI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri. Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

68 ITR 310 (Calcutta). We respectfully observe as follows: - 18 ITA 489/Kol /2005 ITA 1808/Kol /2006 ITA 1811/Kol /2006 Oberoi Hotels (P) Ltd The assessee-company was given a compensation for loss of managing agency of the managed company which was taken over by the State Government. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Conn held that taking over of the electric

OBEROI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-8, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri. Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

68 ITR 310 (Calcutta). We respectfully observe as follows: - 18 ITA 489/Kol /2005 ITA 1808/Kol /2006 ITA 1811/Kol /2006 Oberoi Hotels (P) Ltd The assessee-company was given a compensation for loss of managing agency of the managed company which was taken over by the State Government. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Conn held that taking over of the electric