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]

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return

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

M/S. DELTA DEALERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

68 and Section 69c of the Act and in the case of DCIT Vs. IRIS Health Services Ltd. reported

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AVIMA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

sections": [ "68", "139(1)", "143(3)", "133A", "131", "147", "148", "69C", "36(1)(iii)" ], "issues": "Whether the addition made

NAVANSH VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

69C of the Act along with the sum of Rs. 63,76,486/- added under section 68 of the Act as unexplained

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

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

68 of the Act on account of bogus unsecured loans despite the assessee failing to establish the genuineness of the transactions and the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors? 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law by allowing the appeal of the assessee by deleting the disallowance of Rs. 40,44,375/- under section

DEPUTY COMMISSOENR OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

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

68 of the Act on account of bogus unsecured loans despite the assessee failing to establish the genuineness of the transactions and the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors? 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law by allowing the appeal of the assessee by deleting the disallowance of Rs. 40,44,375/- under section

A R UDYOG,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD 46(3), KOLKATA

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

68 of\nthe Act which refers to unexplained cash credits and the appropriate\nprovision would have been section 69C

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA vs. SENDOZ COMMERCIALS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

The appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.28/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata ………………………………….…..……Appellant Vs. Sendoz Commercials Pvt. Ltd…………..……...........……........……...…..…..Respondent 644, Marshall House, 25, Strand Road, Kol-1. [Pan: Aagcs5174E] C.O. No.12/Kol/2025 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.28/Kol/2025) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sendoz Commercials Pvt. Ltd …………..………….………………..….…..Cross-Objector 644, Marshall House, 25, Strand Road, Kol-1. [Pan: Aagcs5174E] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata.............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tulsyan, Fca & Deepak Mudhra, Aca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 30, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Revenue Has Filed An Appeal & The Assessee Has Filed The Corresponding Cross-Objection Against The Same Order Dated 27.08.2024 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Relating To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 37 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Revenue Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case.

Section 69C of the Act, which reads as under: "69C. Where in any financial year an assessee has incurred any expenditure and he offers no explanation about the source of such expenditure or part thereof, or the explanation, if any, offered by him is not, in the opinion of the [Assessing] Officer, satisfactory, the amount covered by such expenditure

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

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

sections": [ "69A", "147", "148", "143(3)", "132", "69C", "292C", "68", "133(6)", "36(1)" ], "issues": "Whether cash transactions recorded

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

sections": [ "69A", "68", "147", "148", "143(3)", "132", "292C", "69C", "133(6)", "131", "36(1)" ], "issues": "The core issues

I.T.O WD - 1(1),ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. M/S EAST INDIA MINING & POWER ASSOCIATES, PURULIA

In the result, assessee’s CO is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

69C of the Act on account of unexplained expenditure. 4. Facts in brief as have been brought on record are that assessee is a partnership firm and engaged in the business of mining, transportation and construction. The assessee has filed its return of income on 30.03.2011 declaring total income of ₹2,96,183/-. Thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny

D.C.C.T.,CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S NARSINGH ISPAT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 1513/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........Appellant Circle-3(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, 4Th Floor, Room No. 19, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 -Vs.- M/S. Narsingh Ispat Limited,....................Respondent 16, Strand Road, Fairly Place, 15Th Floor, Diamond Heritage, Unit-1512, Kolkata-700001 [Pan: Aaccn0208J] Appearances By: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri Miraj D. Shah, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 05, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 18, 2023 O R D E R

68 of the Act, however, wrongly mentioning section 69C while computing the total income. The ld. Assessing Officer made

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

SUMAN FORWARDING AGENCY PRIVATE LTD.,,HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 13(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM\nAND\nSHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM\nITA No.1432/KOL/2025\n(Assessment Year:2017-18)\nSuman Forwarding Agency\nPrivate Ltd.\nC/o Subash Agarwal &\nAssociates, Advocates Sidha\nGibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite\n213, 2nd Floor, Kolkata-700069\nWest Bengal\n(Appellant)\nVs.\nDCIT, Circle 13(1),\nP-7, Chowringhee Square,\nEsplanade, Chowringhee North,\nBow Barracks, Kolkata-700069\nWest Bengal\n(Respondent)\nPAN No. AAICS7247Q\nAssessee by\nRevenue by\nShri Siddarth Agarwal, A

68 of the Act on account of unexplained share\ncapital;\n2. Rs.8,92,000/- under section 69C of the Act on account

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