J.C.I.T.(OSD),CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S WERIT GLOBAL LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

79,34,200/- and share premium @Rs. 590 totalling Rs.16,48,11,780/- during the relevant assessment year (herein after in shortA.Y). In order to verify the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of shareholders, the AO issued notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act to the shareholders. The AO noted that notices u/s. 133(6) in case of following

DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S. WEARIT GLOBAL LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

79,34,200/- and share premium @Rs. 590 totalling Rs.16,48,11,780/- during the relevant assessment year (herein after in shortA.Y). In order to verify the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of shareholders, the AO issued notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act to the shareholders. The AO noted that notices u/s. 133(6) in case of following

JCIT(OSD),CIR.-12(1) , KOLKATA vs. M/S WEARIT GLOBAL LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

79,34,200/- and share premium @Rs. 590 totalling Rs.16,48,11,780/- during the relevant assessment year (herein after in shortA.Y). In order to verify the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of shareholders, the AO issued notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act to the shareholders. The AO noted that notices u/s. 133(6) in case of following

RAHUL AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-46, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17

68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred to as the ’Act’) . 4. Brief facts of the case as noted by the AO are that the assessee is an individual, had filed his e- return of income disclosing total income of Rs. 21,96,040/-. Later on his case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and after serving

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-49(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S VISWAKARMA RESIDENCY, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. M.L.Meenaआयकर अपील सं.य/ Assessment Years:2016-17 बनाम / Acit, Cir-49(1), Kolkata M/S. Viswakarma Residency Uttarpan Complex, Ds-Iv, V/S. 2Nd Fl., Manicktala Civick Centre, Block-2 & 3, 2Nd Fl., Kolkata-700 054. Pan: Aaifv3279Q अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent .. Hearing Through Video Conferencing अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Manish Kanojia, Cit, Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri S.M Surana, Advocate, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-08-2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26-10-2021

section 68 and cash credits were to be treated explained - Held, yes n. Commissioner of Income­tax, Ajmer v. H. S Builders (P.) Ltd. 120121 26 taxmann.com 86 (Raj.) Confirmations by creditors and production of their balance sheets. accounts. etc.. proven is enough evidence to justify deletion of cash credits. 2. Shri Krishna Murari Naita, Shri Ram Kishan Ajitsaria

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. LAL BABA SEAMLESS TUBES PVT. LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes, while the appeal of the Revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 13 of 1922 Act, arises only where no method of accounting has been regularly employed by assessee or where method employed is such that income, profits and gain could not properly be deduced therefrom – held, yes.” In view of the above discussion and the ratio of the cited case laws, it is held that

LAL BABA SEAMLESS TUBES (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes, while the appeal of the Revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 13 of 1922 Act, arises only where no method of accounting has been regularly employed by assessee or where method employed is such that income, profits and gain could not properly be deduced therefrom – held, yes.” In view of the above discussion and the ratio of the cited case laws, it is held that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. SDR MEGHNATH INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

section 68 was introduced from 1.4.2013, it was not applicable for the period relevant for the instant appeal. These were also produced before the AO as stated in the statement recorded u/s 131 on 13.03.2015 before the AO in response to Question No. 13” 3.5. We further find that ld. CIT(A) has also gone through the net worth

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA vs. EDMOND FINVEST PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

68 along with disallowance of interest expenses thereon of Rs.1,94,958/-, by merely relying on the form rather than the substance of impugned unsecured loan transactions? 3) Whether on facts of the case and in law, CIT(A) has erred in allowing assessee’s appeal on addition made in respect of unsecured loans from three parties along with disallowance

M/S.WINWOOD MARKETING PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-6(4), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 675/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 M/S. Winwood Marketing Pvt. Limited,………Appellant 9/12, Lal Bazar Street, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aabcw3528M] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-6(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Ankit Jalan, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Arun Kumar Meena, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: July 02, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: September 24, 2024 O R D E R

79,44,500/-, which was added by the ld. Assessing Officer with the aid of section 68 of the Income

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BURDWAN, BURDWAN vs. M/S. BARDHAMAN DHARMARAJ PAPER MILL PVT. LTD., BURDWAN

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year : 2015-16

79 taxmann.com 350 (Ker). 3. The assessee’s former grievance in its appeal ITA No.1187/Kol/2019 challenges correctness of both the lower authorities action treating its share capital sum of ₹3.25 crores as unexplained cash credits. It is in this backdrop of facts that we proceed to examine this common issue of unexplained of assessee’s share capital amounting

M/S. BARDHAMAN DHARMARAJ PAPER MILL PVT. LTD.,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BURDWAN

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year : 2015-16

79 taxmann.com 350 (Ker). 3. The assessee’s former grievance in its appeal ITA No.1187/Kol/2019 challenges correctness of both the lower authorities action treating its share capital sum of ₹3.25 crores as unexplained cash credits. It is in this backdrop of facts that we proceed to examine this common issue of unexplained of assessee’s share capital amounting

KAJAL KUMAR ROY,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD - 1(4), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M. Jagtap] I.T.A. No. 1568/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Kajal Kumar Roy.............................…………………………………………Appellant C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, “Seven Brothers”, Lodge, Buroshibtala, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 105 [Pan : Adgprs 8137 G] Income Tax Officer...................……………………………………………….......Respondent Ward 1(4), Hooghly Aayakar Bhawan, G.T. Road Khadina More, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 101 Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Satyajit Mondal, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 31, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 22, 2017 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 6, Kolkata Dated 20.04.2017 & The Solitary Issue Involved Therein Relates To The Addition Of Rs. 13,03,000/- Made By The A.O. & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit (A) On Account Of Loans Taken By The Assessee From Four Parties By Treating The Same As Unexplained Cash Credits Under Section 68. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual Who Is Engaged In The Business Of Trading Of Potatos. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed By Him On 25.09.2011 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 10,92,457/- Including Agricultural Income Of Rs.

section 68 of the Act to prove the genuineness of transactions which had been done by way of account payee cheques and the creditworthiness and identity of the loan creditors. Moreover, the loan creditors appeared before the AO in response summons u/s 131 of the Act and confirmed the transactions. The 10 I.T.A. No. 1568/Kol/2017 A.Y. 2011-12 Kajal

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

section will not cover contracts for sale for goods [CIRCULAR NO.681/F.No.275/54/93-ITB (1994) 206 ITR (ST) 299]. There is no dispute that there was a contract which in the instant case amounted to contract for sale of goods and not works contract so to invite the mischief of s. 194C of the Act. In the instance case, there

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)

Section 68 of the Act. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both on facts and in law in not providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee co-operative Society in re-characterizing the additions made by the Learned Assessing Officer in his assessment order dated 26/12/2019. The learned Commissioner of Income

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, three ingredients were necessary. Firstly identity\nof the parties to the transaction of loan, second is the creditworthiness of such parties\nand thirdly the genuineness of the transaction. It was submitted in vain that neither of\nthe ingredients were satisfied.\n5. As discussed above, since the requisite material was furnished by assessee showing\nthe

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, three ingredients were necessary. Firstly identity\nof the parties to the transaction of loan, second is the creditworthiness of such parties\nand thirdly the genuineness of the transaction. It was submitted in vain that neither of\nthe ingredients were satisfied.\n5. As discussed above, since the requisite material was furnished by assessee showing\nthe

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Section 68 of the Act, three ingredients were necessary. Firstly identity\nof the parties to the transaction of loan, second is the creditworthiness of such parties\nand thirdly the genuineness of the transaction. It was submitted in vain that neither of\nthe ingredients were satisfied.\n5. As discussed above, since the requisite material was furnished by assessee showing\nthe