THE W.B STATE CO-OP AGRI AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-32/ KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18 The W.B. State Co-Op. Agri & Assistant Commissioner Of Rural Development Bank Ltd. Income-Tax, Circle-32, Vs 25D, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata. Kolkata-700017. (Pan: Aaajt0468K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 as well as section 69A of the Act, which are reproduced as under: Section 68. Where any sum is found

BALHANUMAN COMMODEAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(4), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13

68 or for that matter section 69A. This aspect has been deliberated upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

SRIDHARPUR CO-OPERATIVE BANK,BARDHAMAN vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), BURDWAN

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D for any previous

ALISHAN STEELS (P)LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

68 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69C or section 69D." The intention of the legislature

ALISHAN STEELS PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

68 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69C or section 69D." The intention of the legislature

M/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA EMPLOYEES CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.207/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Steel Authority Of India Co-Operative Credit Society Limited.......….Appellant Ispat Cooperative House, 12, Charu Chandra Place Ispat Co-Operative House, Charu Market, Kolkata-700 033. [Pan: Aadas9699B] Vs. Pcit-9, Kolkata..……...…..…....................……........……............…...…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Puja Somani, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Amol Kamat, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 20, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 28, 2022 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.03.2022 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Asansol [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pcit’] Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

68,section 69, section 69A, section 69B,section 69C or section I.T.A. No.207/Kol/2022 Assessment Year

SIMA DHARA,KISMAT APURBAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, CHINSURAH

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1225/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sima Dhara………………………...……………………………..….……….Appellant Kismat Apurbapur, Natun Bazar, Singur, Hooghly, W.B. – 712409. [Pan: Admpd1772F] Vs. Ito, Chinsurah……….....……..............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Susanta Kr. Mukherjee, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Lovish Shelly, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 29, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 22.09.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Running A Petrol Pump Under The Proprietorship Concern Of M/S Freedom Fighter Service Station. The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 By Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.34,09,050/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass Followed By Notices Issued U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 15.10.2019 By

68 (unexplained cash credit) to section 69A (unexplained money) without issuing any notice and without giving any opportunity to the assessee

MANAS KUMAR NAGURI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XIII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

68. The Assessee also submitted to the AO that even provisions of section 69,69A, 69B and 69C of the Act are not applicable

JALUIDANGA PASCHIM NASARATPUR SAMABY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LIMITED,BARDHAMAN, WEST BENGAL vs. INCOME TAX OPPFICER, WARD-1(3), BURDWAN

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

68 of the Income Tax Act 1961 for accepting specified bank notes during demonetization where sources are identified and SBN received prior to 31/12/2016 unjustified. Prathanik krushi Pattina Sahakari Sangha, Niyamitha vs. ITO , ITAT Bangalore, ITA 593/Bang/2021, Date of Pronouncement 01/06/2022 ( Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society). 19 10. Addition under section 69A

THE BANK OF TOKYO-MITSUBISHI LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADIT, INT. TAX., KOLKATA

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

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

68 of the Income Tax Act 1961 for accepting specified bank notes during demonetization where sources are identified and SBN received prior to 31/12/2016 unjustified. Prathanik krushi Pattina Sahakari Sangha, Niyamitha vs. ITO , ITAT Bangalore, ITA 593/Bang/2021, Date of Pronouncement 01/06/2022 ( Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society). 19 10. Addition under section 69A

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 is not applicable to a case where unsecured loan has been repaid. Therefore, our decision in ground no.1 in ITA No. 1699Kol/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 would mutatis mutandis apply to these ground nos. 6 to 8 of this appeal as well. The ground nos. 6 to 8 of the appeal of the revenue

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 is not applicable to a case where unsecured loan has been repaid. Therefore, our decision in ground no.1 in ITA No. 1699Kol/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 would mutatis mutandis apply to these ground nos. 6 to 8 of this appeal as well. The ground nos. 6 to 8 of the appeal of the revenue

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 is not applicable to a case where unsecured loan has been repaid. Therefore, our decision in ground no.1 in ITA No. 1699Kol/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 would mutatis mutandis apply to these ground nos. 6 to 8 of this appeal as well. The ground nos. 6 to 8 of the appeal of the revenue

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 is not applicable to a case where unsecured loan has been repaid. Therefore, our decision in ground no.1 in ITA No. 1699Kol/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 would mutatis mutandis apply to these ground nos. 6 to 8 of this appeal as well. The ground nos. 6 to 8 of the appeal of the revenue

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 is not applicable to a case where unsecured loan has been repaid. Therefore, our decision in ground no.1 in ITA No. 1699Kol/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 would mutatis mutandis apply to these ground nos. 6 to 8 of this appeal as well. The ground nos. 6 to 8 of the appeal of the revenue

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 is not applicable\nto a case where unsecured loan has been repaid. Therefore, our\ndecision in ground no.1 in ITA No. 1699Kol/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 would\nmutatis mutandis apply to these ground nos.6 to 8 of this appeal as\nwell. The ground nos.6 to 8 of the appeal of the revenue are\ndismissed

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 is not applicable\nto a case where unsecured loan has been repaid. Therefore, our\ndecision in ground no.1 in ITA No. 1699Kol/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 would\nmutatis mutandis apply to these ground nos.6 to 8 of this appeal as\nwell. The ground nos.6 to 8 of the appeal of the revenue are\ndismissed

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 is not applicable\nto a case where unsecured loan has been repaid. Therefore, our\ndecision in ground no.1 in ITA No. 1699Kol/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 would\nmutatis mutandis apply to these ground nos.6 to 8 of this appeal as\nwell. The ground nos.6 to 8 of the appeal of the revenue are\ndismissed