CIT v. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd.

Titan Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd., Durgapur vs. DCIT, Circle - 1(2), Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 Titan Engineering Co. Pvt. V/S. Dcit, Circle-1(2), Ltd., Sanjibi Sarani, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, 7Th Floor, Chowringhee Durgapur-713210 [Pan No.Aabct 4321 K] Square, Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri H.V. Bhardwaj, Fca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shrishankar Halder, Jcit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 07-05-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 17-05-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolkata’S Order Dated 05.09.2018 Passed In Case No.18161/Cit(A)-1/Kol./Cir.-1(2)/2015-16, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. Learned Counsel Representing Assessee Does Not Press For First Substantive Ground Raised In The Instant Appeal Challenging Liquidated Damage Disallowance Of ₹85,099/- Made In Both The Lower Proceedings Keeping In Mind Smallness Of The Amount. 3. This First Substantive Ground Is Rejected As Not Pressed. 4. Next Comes The Estimated Ad Hoc Disallowance Of Site Expense Amounting To ₹4,74,241/- In Both The Lower Proceedings. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reads As Follows:-

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “D” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “D” KOLKATA Before Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member and Dr. A.L. Saini, Accountant Member Assessment Year :2012-13 Titan Engineering Co. Pvt. V/s. DCIT, Circle-1(2), Ltd., Sanjibi Sarani, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, 7th Floor, Chowringhee Durgapur-713210 [PAN No.AABCT 4321 K] Square, Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri H.V. Bhardwaj, FCA अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant ShriShankar Halder, JCIT-SR-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 07-05-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 17-05-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronou…

Rohit Jalan, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 2205/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

…of law are bound to go by evidence.” 19. Section 68 of the Act requires the assessee to explain the nature and source of such credit. On the issue of burden of proof, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, in the case of CIT vs. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. (1994) 208 ITR 465 (Cal) laid down that the assessee is required to establish: a) Identity of payer, b) Genuineness of transaction and c) Creditworthiness of payer 20. As explained, the transaction was made in the Bombay Stock Exchange through a SEBI registered broker. As per the established process, on execution of the ordered transaction, the exchange shall hando…

Kanchan Plywood Products Pvt. Ltd., Jalpaiguri vs. ITO, Ward - 1(2), Jalpaiguri

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini Am]

…ion of Tribunal M/s. Subhalaxmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. as well as the decision of the Tribunal in M/s. Bishakha Sales Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT. The Learned DR also relied on the judgement of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. 208 ITR 465 and also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Konark Structural Engineers (P) Ltd. vs DCIT 96 taxmann.com 255 and relying on these decision the Learned DR submitted that the authorities below rightly made the addition of the share capital and share premium u/s 68 of the Act and does not want us to interfere with the order passed…

ITO, Ward-10(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Gateway Enclave Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

…d be creditworthiness. The Ld. DR further submitted that in K.M. Sadhukhan and Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (1999) 239 ITR 77 (Cal) it has been held that burden lies upon the assessee to prove the noted three conditions. In CIT vs. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. (1994) 208 ITR 465 (Cal) the Hon'ble High Court held that "it is for the assessee to prove the 3 M/s. Gateway Enclave Pvt. Ltd., AY 2012-13 identity of the creditors, their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions. Mere furnishing of the particulars is not enough". The Ld. DR also submitted that in CIT vs. Nipun Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (…

DCIT, Circle-3(1), 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

…e reality of the transaction. Moreover, the decisions in ITO v. Diza Holdings P. Ltd. [2002] 255 ITR 573 (Ker); Raunaq Ram Nand Lal v. CIT [2002 254 ITR 617 (P & H); Smt. Iva Gogoi v. CIT [2002] 254 ITR 576 (Gauhati); CIT v. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465 (Cal); Rajshree Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 331 (Raj); R. B. Mittal v. CIT [2000] 246 ITR 283 (AP) ; CIT v. United Commercial and Industrial Co. P. Ltd. [1991] 187 ITR 596 (Cal); M. A. Unneeri Kutty v. CIT [1992] 198 ITR 147 (Ker); Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati); and Hindusthan Tea Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2…

Lal Baba Seamless Tubes (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), 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

…e reality of the transaction. Moreover, the decisions in ITO v. Diza Holdings P. Ltd. [2002] 255 ITR 573 (Ker); Raunaq Ram Nand Lal v. CIT [2002 254 ITR 617 (P & H); Smt. Iva Gogoi v. CIT [2002] 254 ITR 576 (Gauhati); CIT v. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465 (Cal); Rajshree Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 331 (Raj); R. B. Mittal v. CIT [2000] 246 ITR 283 (AP) ; CIT v. United Commercial and Industrial Co. P. Ltd. [1991] 187 ITR 596 (Cal); M. A. Unneeri Kutty v. CIT [1992] 198 ITR 147 (Ker); Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati); and Hindusthan Tea Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2…

Philips India Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-IV, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1142/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Philips India Limited..........……………………………………....………………..…………………….….Appellant Earlier Known As Philips Electronics India Limited 7 No. Justice Chandra Madhab Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - Iv, Kolkata…….............…....................…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate & Shri Navneet Misra, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 27Th, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 1142/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Philips India Limited..........……………………………………....………………..…………………….….Appellant Earlier known as Philips Electronics India Limited 7 No. Justice Chandra Madhab Road Kolkata – 700 020 [PAN : AABCP 9487 A] Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - IV, Kolkata…….............…....................…...Respondent Appearances by: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate & Shri Navneet Misra, Advocate, appeared on behalf of t…

M/S G. D. Enterprise, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-40, Kolkata

In the result, we dismiss both the appeal of the assessee as well of Revenue

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 M/S G.D. Enterprise V/S. Acit, Circle-40 1/H/1, Raja Janmenjoy 3, Government Place Road, Kolkata-700010 (West), Kolkat- [Pan No.Aacfg 4533 A] 700001 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri J.M. Thard, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sourav Kumar, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 14-01-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 15-03-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata’S Order Dated 31.12.2015, Passed In Case No.1046/Cit(A)-13/Kol/Cir-45/2014-15, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Ground Seeks To Reverse Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Treating Its Purchases Amounting To ₹3,39,04,027/- As Bogus In Assessment As Affirmed In Lower Appellate Proceedings. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reads As Under:- “5. Decision 5.1 Appellant'S Submission & Facts Available On Record Is Carefully Considered. The Assessee Has Argued That It Had Made All Payments Through Account Payee Cheque & From Your Petitioner Site There Is No Mistake As Per Law & Income Tax Act. So The Disallowance Of Purchase Against Payment Through Account Payee Cheque Would Not Be False & It May Be Accepted

…d by the assessee without any supporting evidence (scand copy of four bills in order to show the handwriting and provision forma is placed). 5. Appellant main reliance is payment to suppliers by cbeques. In the case of CIT v. Precision Finance (P) Ltd. (1994) 208 ITR 465 Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has held that it was for the assessee to prove the identity of the creditors, their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions. On the facts of this case, the Tribunal did not take into account all these ingredients which had to be satisfied by the assessee. Mere furnishing of the particulars was not enou…

ITO, WD-10(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Sanskrita Properties Pvt. Limited, Kolkata

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

…CIT Vs. Nivedan Vanijya Niyojan Ltd. (2003) 263 ITR 0623 (Cal) as well as this Tribunal’s order in M/s/. Subhalakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. in ITA No. 1104/Kol/2014 dated 30.07.2015 and other cases including the case of CIT Vs. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. 208 ITR 465 to say that the assessee failed to discharge the creditworthiness of the share subscribers so applying section 68 addition as made by the AO is legally tenable. Therefore, according to Ld. DR, the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) needs to be overturned and that of the AO be restored. 3 Sanskrita Properties P. Ltd., AY 2012-13 5. Per contra, the Ld. AR…