CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd.

ACIT, Cir.-1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Gold Rush Sales and Service Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and CO by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

…ription of equity shares subscription value to be liable to be added to the income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. While deciding the issue Ld. CIT(A) has relied on a series of decisions in the case of CIT Vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. reported in 394 ITR 680 (Bombay) wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that the proviso to Section 68 of the Act has been introduced in the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013 which would be effective from AY 2013-14 onwards and not for the subject assessment year. Ld. CIT(A) also observed that the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Ami Industries (Indi…

DCIT, CC-2(4), Kolkata. vs. Narsingh Ispat Limited., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

…| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 255/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Kolkata Narsingh Ispat Limited Vs 15th Floor, Room No. 1512 Diamond Heritage 16, Strand Road Fairley Place Kolkata – 700001 [PAN: AACCN0208J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, A/R. Revenue by : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 07/06/2023 घोषणा…

Subhdhan Financial Advisory Private Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-9(4), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 2198/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Subhdhan Financial Advisory Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(4) Private Limited Vs C/O Sri Jitendra Kaushik, Advocate 19D, Muktaram Babu Street Kolkata - 700007 [Pan : Aamcs7818P] अपीलाथ"/ (Assessee ) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Fca Revenue By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/07/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 15, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 13/03/2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax(A) 15, Kolkata Is Arbitrary, Illegal & Bad In Law. 2. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) 15, Erred In Confirming The Action Of Income-Tax Officer Adding A Sum Of Rs.72,00,000/- Under Section 68 Of The I T Act 1961. 3. For That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter Or Amend Any Ground Before Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

…Act by addition of proviso was made subsequent to previous year relevant to the subject assessment year 2012- 13 and cannot be invoked. It may be pointed out that this court in CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. [2017] 80 taxmann.com 272/247 Taxman 245/394 ITR 680 (Bom.) has while refusing to entertain a question with regard to section 68 of the Act has held that the proviso to section 68 of the Act introduced with effect from April 1, 2013 will not have retrospective effect and would be effective only from the assessment year 2013-14. (c) In view of the above, question No. B as proposed also does not give…

M/S Krishilakshmi Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd., Burdwan vs. I.T.O., Ward-1(2), Burdwan

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 605/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Krishilakshmi Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward - Vill.- Hatgobindapur Vs 1(2), Kolkata Dist.- Burdwan Pincode - 713407 [Pan : Aaeck1877C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Is The Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - Burdwan (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 25/01/2019 For The Assessment Year 2012-13, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Ld. C.I.T.(A) On 25.01.2019 Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal. 2. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.207,00,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Share Application Money With Share Premium By Wrongly Treating The Same As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 Which Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal. 3. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Considered That The Assessee Company Had Discharged Its Onus By Furnishing All The Relevant Documents In Connection With The Share Capital Raised & Also Proved The Identity, Creditworthiness Of The Share Application And

…| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SONJOY SARMA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 605/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Krishilakshmi Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward - Vill.- Hatgobindapur Vs 1(2), Kolkata Dist.- Burdwan Pincode - 713407 [PAN : AAECK1877C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Revenue by : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 16/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 3…

Acme Chem Limited, Kolkata vs. NFAC, Delhi/ D.C.I.T., Circle-11(1), Kolkata

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'ए' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A” BENCH, KOLKATA श्री राजपाल यादव, उपाध्यक्ष (कोलकाता क्षेत्र) एवं डॉ. मनीष बोरड, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष Before SRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT & DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 641/KOL/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13 Acme Chem Limited.....…………................................Appellant [PAN: AACCA 3931 B] Vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1), Kolkata...................................Respondent I.T.A. No.: 650/KOL/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acme Chem Limited.....…………................................Appellant [PAN: AACCA…

Acme Chem Limited, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-10(1), Kolkata

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'ए' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A” BENCH, KOLKATA श्री राजपाल यादव, उपाध्यक्ष (कोलकाता क्षेत्र) एवं डॉ. मनीष बोरड, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष Before SRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT & DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 641/KOL/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13 Acme Chem Limited.....…………................................Appellant [PAN: AACCA 3931 B] Vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1), Kolkata...................................Respondent I.T.A. No.: 650/KOL/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acme Chem Limited.....…………................................Appellant [PAN: AACCA…

Acme Chem Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-10(1), Kolkata

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'ए' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A” BENCH, KOLKATA श्री राजपाल यादव, उपाध्यक्ष (कोलकाता क्षेत्र) एवं डॉ. मनीष बोरड, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष Before SRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT & DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 641/KOL/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13 Acme Chem Limited.....…………................................Appellant [PAN: AACCA 3931 B] Vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1), Kolkata...................................Respondent I.T.A. No.: 650/KOL/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acme Chem Limited.....…………................................Appellant [PAN: AACCA…

M/S. Radison Projects Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 8(3), Kolkata

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 11/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Radison Projects Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 8(3), 21, Camac Street Vs Kolkata Happy House Kolkata - 700016 [Pan : Aafcr7565P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate & Shri Pranabesh Sarkar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/03/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Is The Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 14/12/2022 For The Assessment Year 2012-13, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Ld. C.I.T. (A) On 14.12.2022 Which Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal. 2. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.1,37,00,000/- Made By The A.O. On Account Of Share Application Money With Share Premium By Wrongly Treating The Same As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 Which Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal. 3. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Considered That The Assessee Company Had Discharged Its Onus By Furnishing All The Relevant Documents In Connection With The Share Capital Raised & Also

…| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SONJOY SARMA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 11/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Radison Projects Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 8(3), 21, Camac Street Vs Kolkata Happy House Kolkata - 700016 [PAN : AAFCR7565P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate & Shri Pranabesh Sarkar, Advocate Revenue by : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 02/03/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date…

DCIT, C.C.-3(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Tanishque Trade Link Pvt. Ltd, Howrah

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 17/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tanishque Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata Vs Bhabatarini Apartment G.T. Road, Room No. 602 Howrah - 711201 [Pan : Aacct7512R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, Fca Revenue By : Shri Biswanath Das, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/01/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 24/09/2020, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That On Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As In Facts In Allowing The Bogus Share Capital Raised In The Books Of The Assessee Without Appreciating The Fact That The Assessee Failed To Discharge Its Primary Onus To Prove & Establish The Identity & Creditworthiness Of The Investor Companies & Genuineness Of The Transaction. 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As In Facts In Ignoring That The Identity & Creditworthiness Of The Shareholders & Even The Genuineness Of The Transactions Remained Unexplained. 3. That On Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Invoking His Powers U/S. 250(4) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 In Directing The Assessing Officer To Make Further Enquiry & Report The Results Of The

…a prudent businessman. The test of prudence by substituting its own view in place of the businessman's has not been approved by the Supreme Court. [Para 54]” (b) In the case of CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. [2017] 80 taxmann.com 272/247 Taxman 245/394 ITR 680 the Revenue contended that the fact that the shares were issued at high premium raised suspicion on the genuineness of the transactions. While dismissing this plea raised by the Revenue, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held as under: (e) We find that the proviso to section 68 of the Act has been introduced by the Finance Act 2012 with effect from 1…