“share capital and share premium”

Goodview Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 6(2), Kolkata

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.986/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Goodview Marketing Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant 255, Canal Street, Shree Bhumi, Brijdham Housing Complex, Kolkata-700048. (Pan: Aadcg0582H) Vs. Income Tax Officer ………… Respondent Ward-6(2), Kolkata. Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, Ar Appeared For Appellant Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 23.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 16.10.2024 Order Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2008-09 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 15.03.2024 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Framed U/S. 144/263 Of The Act By Ito, Ward-6(2), Kolkata Dated 19.03.2014. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

986/Kol/2024 Goodview Marketing Pvt. Ltd., AY : 2008-09 Act also asked the assessee to explain the nature and source of share capital and share premium totalling to Rs.7.97 Cr. received during the year in light of sec. 68 of the Act. Detailed enquiry was conducted and the assessee ... best judgment assessment u/s. 144 r.w.s. 263 of the Act on 19.03.2014 making addition of Rs.7.97 Cr. on account of unexplained share capital and share premium u/s. 68 of the Act. 6. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and furnished detailed submission along with placing

One Point Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-6(3), Kolkata

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 473/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 One Point Commercial Pvt. Ito, Wad 6(3), Ltd. Kolkata Vs 40/4, Strand Road, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700001. (Pan: Acvpj4013F) अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त् यथ"/ (Respondent)

account of unexplained cash credit u/s. One Point Commercial Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2012-13 68 of the Act on account of share capital and share premium totaling to Rs.4,78,50,000/- and this Tribunal decided in favour of the assessee deleting the addition made ... thereafter submitted.” 4. In direction of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High court, we proceed to adjudicate the issue of unexplained share capital and share premium u/s. 68 of the Act amounting to Rs.4,78,50,000/-. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee which

M/S Agrawal Trexim Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

submitted by the assessee fall far short of discharging the onus of the assessee in explaining the source of the said share capital and share premium and genuineness of the transaction. He, therefore, made the impugned addition by treating the share capital/share premium received by the assessee

Navnita Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 6(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

share. We observe that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee has furnished all the details in support of share capital and share premium raised by the assessee beside the details of the investors vide written submissions dated 9.6.2014 filed in reply to notice dated 5.5.2014 issued ... capital and the Tribunal noted that even during the assessment proceedings, the assessee has furnished all details in respect of the share capital and share premium raised by the assessee besides the details of the investors by their submission dated 9.6.2014 in reply to the notice issued

Balhanuman Commodeal Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-5(4), Kolkata

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13

heard with the assistance of the Ld. DR/Ld. Sr. DR. 5. Ld. AO has made the additions on account of share capital and share premium and also u/s 14A of the Act. An extract of the assessment order is reproduced below: 3. In compliance to the notices issued ... Thus the picture that emerges is that the funds invested by Zeus into the appellant company by way of share capital and share premium have in turn been received by It as primarily share premium. Last of all what needs to be seen is the bank statements

Unisys Softwares and Holding Ind. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 8(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12

total income of Rs.31,13,31,539/- and an addition of Rs. 30,00,00,000/- was made on account of share capital and share premium received. Aggrieved with the assessment order the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal vide order ... brought back its unaccounted income of Rs. 30,00,00,000/- in the A.Y. 2011-12 by way of issuing share capital and share premium. 2.5. In view of above the assessee was asked to explain why the said amount should not be treated as unexplained cash credit

ITO, WD. -1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Jealous Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the Revenueishereby dismissed

Bench: the appellate proceedings, or in the course of appellate proceedings.”

assessment and those were duly examined by the authority below. Therefore, we find no merit in the Revenues contentions that share capital and share premium money should be treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act in the hands of the assessee. I.T.A. No.424/Kol/2020 M/s Jealous

Hanuman Steel Wires Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargandshri Sanjay Awasthi

assessment carried out u/s 143(3) of the Act made the addition of Rs.1,10,00,000/- on account of unexplained share capital and share premium vide order dated 21.03.2015. Penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and the impugned penalty was imposed

M/S.Winwood Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-6(4), 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

before we embark upon an inquiry on the facts of the present appeal, in order to find out whether the share capital and share premium money received by the assessee during the year is required to be treated 9 M/s. Winwood Marketing Pvt. Limited as its unexplained credit ... share capital in Private Limited Company on one hand and Public Limited Company on other hand, would be different. The share capital and share premium are basically irreversible receipts or credits in the hands of the companies. Share capital is considered to be cost of shares