“share capital and share premium”

ITO, WD.9(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata……………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…..…..... Respondent 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] C.O. No.6/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…....... Cross-Objector 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] Vs Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata …………..….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 07, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: This Appeal By The Revenue & Corresponding Cross-Objection By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 08.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

r.w.s. 263 r.w.s 147/143(3) of the Act, made the addition of Rs.12,61,00,000/- in respect of share capital and share premium received by the assessee during the year under consideration. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal

Advent Vinimay Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos. 220 & 221/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2012-2013 & 2014-2015 Advent Vinimay Private Limited,………..….Appellant 207, Maharishi Devendra Road, Burrabazar, Kolkata-700007 [Pan:Aaica3094K] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…….…………………….…Respondent Ward-9(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, D.R. & Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

carefully. 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 as its unexplained credit and deserves to be added ... 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

Advent Vinimay Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos. 220 & 221/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2012-2013 & 2014-2015 Advent Vinimay Private Limited,………..….Appellant 207, Maharishi Devendra Road, Burrabazar, Kolkata-700007 [Pan:Aaica3094K] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…….…………………….…Respondent Ward-9(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, D.R. & Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

carefully. 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 as its unexplained credit and deserves to be added ... 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

M/S Devbhumi Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the ld. Assessing Officer making the addition for unexplained share capital and share premium amounting to Rs.1,49,10,000/-. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company. Loss ... carrying out assessment proceedings. The ld. Assessing Officer observed that during the year assessee has received share capital and share premium from various persons including individuals and private limited company totaling to Rs.1,49,10,000/- (share capital of Rs.21,99,000/- and share premium

M/S Ncs, Impex Holding Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward -8(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We note that that in this case the assessee has raised share capital and share premium to the tune of Rs. 1,51,00,000/- and the assessee has filed before the AO necessary evidences comprising name

Tirumala Irons (P) Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 993/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Tirumala Irons (P) Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 4(1), Subash Agarwal & Associates, Vs Kolkata /Assessing Officer, Nfac, Delhi Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane Suite 213, 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Aaact9984H] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/05/2024 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 Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter The “Ld. First Appellate Authority”) Dt. 27/07/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Passing The Order Exparte Without Affording Reasonable Opportunity Of Hearing. 2. For That The Ld. Cit (A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 4,81,00,000/- Made By The A.O. On Account Of Share Capital Including Share Premium By Wrongly Applying The Decision Of Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Cit Vs. T.V. Sundaram Iyenger & Sons Ltd. 222 Itr 344. 2

justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,81,00,000/- made by the A.O. on account of share capital including share premium by wrongly applying the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. T.V. Sundaram Iyenger & Sons ... Tirumala Irons (P) Ltd. 3. For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the share capital and share premium was raised in the preceding year and in the instant year, the assessee merely forfeited the shares, as such, the addition

ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Daniel Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.645/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata………..…….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Daniel Commodities Pvt. Ltd…..........…..........................…..…..... Respondent 6, Lyons Range, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Aaccd9344F] C.O. 4/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.645/Kol/2020) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Daniel Commodities Pvt. Ltd…………….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector 6, Lyons Range, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Aaccd9344F] Vs Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata …………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 23, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 07, 2024

r.w.s 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act and made the addition of Rs.10,61,00,000/- in respect of share capital and share premium received by the assessee during the year. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before ... that during the previous year 2903-09 relevant to fee assessment year ,2009-10,, toe impugned year the appellant had raised share capital including share premium in the aggregate sum of Rs.10,61,00,000/- by issuing 1,00,000 equity shares at par to toe subscriber

Wellman Logistice Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT(OSD), Ward-4(1), Kolkata.

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

account of increase Page 3 of 17 I.T.A. No.: 694/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Wellman Logistics Pvt. Ltd. in share capital and share premium of the assessee company which both lower authorities have held to be unexplained calling for addition u/s 68 of the Act from the nine ... companies. From the perusal of the above details, we find a sum of Rs. 1,26,00,000/- as share capital and share premium which were received from nine share subscriber companies who gave such amount to the assessee company. We notice that ld. AO viewed that

Dream Valley Barter Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 7(3), Kolkata

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.497/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dream Valley Barter Pvt. Ltd.….…….…................…...……………....Appellant C/O Narendra Goyal & Co, 16, N.S. Road, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Aaecd1016E] Vs. Ito, Ward-7(3), Kolkata….....…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Giridhar Dhelia, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 19, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 30, 2024 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 26.10.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1) For That The Learned Cit (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 12,25,33,500/-Assessed By Ld. Assessing Officer (A O) Under Assessment Order U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act') Dated 23/03/2015 On Account Of Unexplained Cash Credit Being Share Capital & Premium U/S 68 Of The Act On Irrelevant Considerations & Arbitrary Grounds Thus The Same Be Deleted.

appeal would reveal that the assessee has agitated the addition of Rs.12,25,33,500/- made by the Assessing Officer treating share capital and share premium received by the assessee as unexplained income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. 4. At the outset, the ld. counsel

I.T.O., Ward-1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Mangalvani Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 785/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), M/S. Mangalvani Commercial Pvt. Kolkata Vs Ltd. 2B, Grant Lane Room No.-4K Kolkata - 700012 [Pan: Aaccl2310D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Kiran Chatrapoty, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 1, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 15/01/2019, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The When The Case Was Fixed For Hearing On 24/08/2022, 01/09/2022, 11/10/2022 & 01/08/2023. No Compliance Was Made Even When Notices Were Sent Through Rpad. Even Today Also There Is No Representation. It, Therefore, Seems That The Assessee Is Not Interested To Pursue This Appeal. We, Therefore Decide To Adjudicate The Issue Raised In The Instant Appeal On The Basis Of The Available Records & Hearing The Departmental Representative. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

year under appeal being the first year, the ld. Assessing Officer failed to find any merit in the claim of share capital and share premium and both were added in the hands of the assessee. 4.1. Aggrieved the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and stated ... have heard the ld. D/R and perused the record placed before us. Addition u/s 68 of the Act for unexplained share capital and share premium of Rs. 1,35,000/- and Rs.3,49,65,000/- is in challenge before us at the instance of the revenue

Sati Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-9(4), Kol, Kolkata

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

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

Pragya Traders (P)Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Kolkata

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

never have been controverted by the ld. AO during the assessment proceeding but the ld. AO simply added the amount of share capital and share premium on the ground that assessee has not produced the directors/shareholders. Thus, going by the records placed by the assessee