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

undisclosed income. iv) The Hon’ble CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by upholding the treatment of a miscellaneous receipt of Rs. 2,75,570/- which had already been considered in the total income, as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and further subjecting it to tax u/s 115BBE of the Act, as done

MADHUBAN DEALERS PVT. LTD. PRESENTLY KNOWN AS MADHUBAN DEALERS LLP,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-13, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

undisclosed income and accordingly assessed them at nilvide order dated 20.11.2018. Thereafter, the assessee received a notice u/s. 154 of the Act dated 14.01.2019 in which the AO pointed out the mistake in applying provisions of section 68 of the Act which was replied on 18.03.2019 in which it was pointed out that the information did not pertain

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(2), GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED , GANGTOK SIKKIM

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

income represented by any addition made in conformity with the arm's length price determined by the Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained information and documents as prescribed under section 92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e) the amount of undisclosed

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

undisclosed income both under the normal provisions as well\nas u/s 115JB of the Act. The Ld. AO noted on comparison of ITS details\nas per Form No. 26AS that certain interest and rental income had not\nbeen credited by the assessee in the profit and loss account though the\nsame were reflected in Form No. 26AS and the credit

COAL INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

undisclosed income both under the normal provisions as well\nas u/s 115JB of the Act. The Ld. AO noted on comparison of ITS details\nas per Form No. 26AS that certain interest and rental income had not\nbeen credited by the assessee in the profit and loss account though the\nsame were reflected in Form No. 26AS and the credit

M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

undisclosed income both under the normal provisions as well\nas u/s 115JB of the Act. The Ld. AO noted on comparison of ITS details\nas per Form No. 26AS that certain interest and rental income had not\nbeen credited by the assessee in the profit and loss account though the\nsame were reflected in Form No. 26AS and the credit

M/S COAL INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA

undisclosed income both under\nthe normal provisions and while computing book profits under section\n115JB of the Act.\n4) That the appellant craves leave to add to and/or alter, amend, modify or\nrescind the grounds hereinabove before or at the hearing of this appeal.”\n2.3 The Revenue has raised the following revised grounds of appeal in\nITA No. 623/KOL/2018

PRATIK AGARWAL BENEFICIARY TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, C.C.-3(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

undisclosed credit u/s 68. In view of the above discussion, I find no infirmity in the orders of the Ld. AO, and I confirm the same, holding the claim of STCL of Rs.16,40,62,61/- to be bogus. Therefore this ground of appeal stands dismissed.” Page 7 of 74 I.T.A. Nos.: 982, 983, 984 & 2068/KOL/2018 Assessment Year

M/S. GATEWAY FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC - 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

undisclosed credit u/s 68. In view of the above discussion, I find no infirmity in the orders of the Ld. AO, and I confirm the same, holding the claim of STCL of Rs.16,40,62,61/- to be bogus. Therefore this ground of appeal stands dismissed.” Page 7 of 74 I.T.A. Nos.: 982, 983, 984 & 2068/KOL/2018 Assessment Year

PINKY AGARWAL ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

undisclosed credit u/s 68. In view of the above discussion, I find no infirmity in the orders of the Ld. AO, and I confirm the same, holding the claim of STCL of Rs.16,40,62,61/- to be bogus. Therefore this ground of appeal stands dismissed.” Page 7 of 74 I.T.A. Nos.: 982, 983, 984 & 2068/KOL/2018 Assessment Year

M/S. NISHIT AGARWAL BENEFICIARY TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC - 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

undisclosed credit u/s 68. In view of the above discussion, I find no infirmity in the orders of the Ld. AO, and I confirm the same, holding the claim of STCL of Rs.16,40,62,61/- to be bogus. Therefore this ground of appeal stands dismissed.” Page 7 of 74 I.T.A. Nos.: 982, 983, 984 & 2068/KOL/2018 Assessment Year

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

income tax computation the provision being contingent in nature dependent on future occurrence required to be added back in the computation total income though debited in the P/L Account. As per Accounts Standard 29, a \"contingent liability” is: (1) a possible obligation that arises from past events and the existence of which will be confirmed only by the occurrence

M/S. PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 12(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.2308/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S Philips India Limited.….............……….........…..........….…… Appellant 3Rd Floor, Tower A, Dlf Park, 08 Block Af, Major Arterial Road, New Town (Rajarhat), Kolkata-700156. [Pan: Aabcp9487A] Vs. Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata.......….....……........…...…...…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ketan K Ved, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Amal Kamat, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 17, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 06, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.07.2019 Of The Assessing Officer (In Short The ‘A.O’) Passed U/S 92Ca(3) & 144C Read With Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) In Pursuance Of The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Dated 14.05.2019. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Impugned Assessment Order Framed By The Assessing Officer Is Null & Void Being Framed Without Passing Of Draft Assessment Order. That The Assessing Officer Without Passing Of Draft Assessment Order & Without Giving Opportunity To The Assessee To File Objections Against The Said Draft Assessment Order As Per Provisions To Section 144C Of The

transfer pricing issue related to international transaction in terms of s.92C(3) of the Act, and after receipt of the TPO’s order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer is required to pass draft assessment order incorporating the order of the TPO in terms of s.92CA(4) of the Act. 3.6 In view of the provisions under

ANIL KUMAR PAIK ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-8(1), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 492/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anil Kumar Paik Acit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Vs 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor Suite No. 203 Off Hare Street Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aflpp6567R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 15/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld. Commissioner, Of Income Tax (Appeals)- N.F.A.C. Acted Unlawfully In Impliedly Sustaining; The Purported Addition Of Rs. 1,67.44,907/- Made The Ld. Assistant Commissioner, Of Income Tax, Circle 8(1) Kolkata By Invoking The Mischief U/S. 43Ca Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Without Satisfying The Parameters Thereof & The Adverse Conclusion Reached On That Behalf In Violation Of The Statutory Prescription Is Completely Unfounded, Unjustified & Untenable In Law. 2. For That The Specious Approach Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-N.F.A,C. Of Misreading Evidence, Considering Improper Facts

price of a capital asset. For obvious reasons, this provision would not apply in case of a builder for whom such immovable property is in nature of stock in trade and not capital asset. To overcome this difficulty the legislature had inserted Section 43CA under Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f 1.4.2014. This provision would enable the Revenue to tax the income

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

transferring, holding, disposing, and otherwise dealing and investing in shares, stocks, debentures, bonds, land, building, properties, obligation and securities. The company also carries on Software business as manufacturer, buyer, seller, trader, importer, exporter, distributor, broker, stockiest, and omission agent. The company was incorporated as a private company in 1976, promoted by Giriraj Kishor Agarwal and Tunu Agarwal. Other key persons

ANIL KUMAR PAIK,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 468/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Anil Kumar Paik Acit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Vs 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor Suite No. 203 Off Hare Street Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aflpp6567R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/09/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 15/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

price. Total of such difference come to Rs. 48,31,520/-. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has claimed that the details of payments have not been examined by the ld. Assessing Officer. Considering the location of the flats, the market valuation cannot be adopted from the stamp valuation authority and matter may be referred to Department valuation officer. Further

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

undisclosed sales and consequently income of the assessee. The seized document has to be read and accepted as a whole and it is not permissible to pick and choose or make further estimates therefrom unless and until there are cogent evidences /materials in support the same. The case of the assessee finds support from the decision of Hon’ble Gujrat

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

undisclosed sales and consequently income of the assessee. The seized document has to be read and accepted as a whole and it is not permissible to pick and choose or make further estimates therefrom unless and until there are cogent evidences /materials in support the same. The case of the assessee finds support from the decision of Hon’ble Gujrat