CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd.

ITO, Ward-4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Tara Re-Rolling Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Judical Member & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.49/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, Ward-4(1), Kolkata............................................................................Appellant Vs. M/S Tara Re-Rolling Pvt. Ltd..................................................................Respondent 1/1A, Vansittart Row, Dalhousie, 1St Floor, Room No.6A, Kolkata-1. [Pan:Aabct3982C] Appearances By: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 22, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 01, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 02.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Revenue In This Appeal Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Cit(A) In Deleting The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer In Respect Of Receipt Of Rs.4,53,50,000/- By The Assessee Company Which Was Treated By The Assessing Officer As Unexplained Income Of The Assessee U/S 68 Of The Act On The Ground That The Assessee Had Failed To Establish The Identity, Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of The Share Subscribers.

…icer invoked the provisions under Section 68/69 of the Income Tax Act and made addition of Rs.24,00,000/-. On appeal the Learned CIT (A) by following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. M/s. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2008) 216 CTR 195 allowed the appeal by holding I.T.A. No.49/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s Tara Re-Rolling Pvt. Ltd that share capital/premium of Rs.24,00,000/- received from the investors was not liable to be treated under Section 68 as unexplained credits and it should not be taxed in the hands of the appellant company. As indicated earlier, the Tribuna…

Garud Credit & Holding Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. I.T.O WD - 9(2), Kolkata

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 1270/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Garud Credit & Holding Pvt. Limited,.........Appellant D.J. Shah & Co., 2, Elgin Road, Kolkata-700020 [Pan: Aaacg9791P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-9(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Veekaas S. Sharma, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 06, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 01, 2023 O R D E R

…hi 102 – 121 Technologies (P) Ltd. Bench Vs. PCIT Pioneer Distilleries ITA No. The Hon’ble ITAT, Pune 122 – 129 Limited Vs. PCIT-1, 479/PUN/2017 Bench Aurangabad Argument:- No addition u/s 68 if identity of subscribers has been furnished. CIT vs Lovely (2008) 216 CTR 195 The Hon’ble Supreme 130 Exports (P) Ltd Court Argument:- Jurisdiction u/s 263 cannot be assumed in case of inadequate enquiry: PCIT vs. Singhal (2022) 6 NYPCTR The Hon’ble High Court 131 – 134 Enterprises (P) Ltd. 973 (Cal) of Calcutta PCIT Vs. SPML Infra (2022) 6 NYPCTR The Hon’ble High Court 135 – 138 Ltd. 1314 (Cal) of Calcutta Argument:- Issu…

I.T.O., Ward-9(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Reward Hirise Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

…ndings of fact recorded by both the authorities." 23. Our attention was also drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing SLP in the case of CIT v. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd. as has been reported as judgment delivered by the CTR at [2008] 216 CTR 195: "Can the amount of share money be regarded as undisclosed income under section 68 of the Income tax Act, 1961? We find no merit in this special leave petition for the simple reason that if the share application money is received by the assessee- company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the AO, then the Department is free…

I.T.O., Ward-9(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Reward Hirise Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

…ndings of fact recorded by both the authorities." 23. Our attention was also drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing SLP in the case of CIT v. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd. as has been reported as judgment delivered by the CTR at [2008] 216 CTR 195: "Can the amount of share money be regarded as undisclosed income under section 68 of the Income tax Act, 1961? We find no merit in this special leave petition for the simple reason that if the share application money is received by the assessee- company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the AO, then the Department is free…

ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata vs. M.D.Ornaments (P) Ltd, Kolkata

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.646/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata...................……….........…..........….…… Appellant Vs. M/S M.D. Ornaments Pvt. Ltd..….....……........….....…...…..…..... Respondent 1/1A, Vansittart Row, Dalhousie, Kolkata-1. [Pan:Aaacd9561A] Appearances By: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 09, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 19, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 02.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Revenue In This Appeal Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Cit(A) In Deleting The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer In Respect Of Receipt Of Rs.2,28,00,000/- By The Assessee Company Which Was Treated By The Assessing Officer As Unexplained Income Of The Assessee U/S 68 Of The Act On The Ground That The Assessee Had Failed To Establish The Identity, Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of The Share Subscribers.

…icer invoked the provisions under Section 68/69 of the Income Tax Act and made addition of Rs.24,00,000/-. On appeal the Learned CIT (A) by following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. M/s. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2008) 216 CTR 195 allowed the appeal by holding that share capital/premium of Rs.24,00,000/- received from the investors was not liable to be treated under Section 68 as unexplained credits and it should not be taxed in the hands of the appellant company. As indicated earlier, the Tribunal below dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. After hearing the learned…

Aroto Trade India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-9(1), Kolkata

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

…were offered, it was incumbent on the Assessing Authority to examine the same and arrive at a cogent conclusion. Assessing Officer having failed to discharge such obligation the addition is not sustainable in law.., case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC) that where share application money.” 7.4. In the course of assessment proceeding, Ld. AO directed the assessee to produce the director of the assessee and also the directors of the subscriber companies along with relevant documentary evidence and details which was not complied with in full. Ld. Counsel submitted that mere non-appearance of d…

Laxmi Srijan Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-9(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘‘सी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी संजय शमा" "या"यक सद"य के सम" [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No.74/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Laxmi Srijan Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward-9(3), Kolkata (PAN: AACCL 1453 F) Appellant / (अपीलाथ") Respondent / ( !यथ") 16.03.2023 Date of Hearing / सुनवाई क$ "त&थ Date of Pronouncement/ 29.03.2023 आदेश उ)घोषणा क$ "त&थ For the Appellant/ Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, FCA "नधा"/रती क$ ओर से For the Respondent/ Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl.…

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

…actions, thus his action is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. 4. For that the issue relating to the raising of share capital is concluded in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Export (P) Ltd. 216 CTR 195 holding that addition on account of share capital cannot be made in the hands of the recipient company. 5. For that on the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was wrong in disallowing 0.5% of average investment under rule 8D(2) (iii) amounting to Rs.34,250/- by invoking Sec. 14A which is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. 6. For that on…