APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Deemed Dividend 21,92,55,967 47,07,00,000 5,15,00,000 1,15,00,000 u/s 2(22)(e) PF and ESI u/s - 27,126 53,507 34,631 2(24)(x) Disallowance of - - 4,23,358 91,306 Interest on IT, ST & TDS

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Deemed Dividend 21,92,55,967 47,07,00,000 5,15,00,000 1,15,00,000 u/s 2(22)(e) PF and ESI u/s - 27,126 53,507 34,631 2(24)(x) Disallowance of - - 4,23,358 91,306 Interest on IT, ST & TDS

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Deemed Dividend 21,92,55,967 47,07,00,000 5,15,00,000 1,15,00,000 u/s 2(22)(e) PF and ESI u/s - 27,126 53,507 34,631 2(24)(x) Disallowance of - - 4,23,358 91,306 Interest on IT, ST & TDS

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. DREAM BAKE PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Deemed Dividend for this year and to add back the same in the hands of the assessee u/s 56(2)(i) of the IT Act, 1961. Penal proceedings u/s 271 (1)(c) of IT Act, 1961 has been initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. " 6.2. The Assessee has made detailed submission. Some of which is reproduced as below

SHIV TRANSPORT & TRAVELS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-56(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A No. 889/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2007-08

deemed dividend u] s 2(22)(e) of the Act is confirmed. “ 11. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the Assessee who reiterated the stand of the Assessee as put forth before the CIT(A). The learned DR relied

ITO, WD-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S J. K. M. INVESTMENT PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result both the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A Nos.1461 & 1462 /Kol/2015 Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2011-12 I.T.O. Ward – 12 (1) Vs.- M/S J.K.M.Investment (P)Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata. [Pan : Aabcj 2724 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.Dasgupta, Addl. Cit(Dr) For The Respondent : Shri Ankit Jalan, A.R.

deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee was rightly deleted by CIT(A). For the reasons given on the same issue for A.Y.2008-09, we find no merits in ground no.1 to 5 raised by the revenue. 9. Ground No.6 raised by the revenue reads as follows :- “6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

ITO, WD-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S J. K. M. INVESTMENT PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result both the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A Nos.1461 & 1462 /Kol/2015 Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2011-12 I.T.O. Ward – 12 (1) Vs.- M/S J.K.M.Investment (P)Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata. [Pan : Aabcj 2724 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.Dasgupta, Addl. Cit(Dr) For The Respondent : Shri Ankit Jalan, A.R.

deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee was rightly deleted by CIT(A). For the reasons given on the same issue for A.Y.2008-09, we find no merits in ground no.1 to 5 raised by the revenue. 9. Ground No.6 raised by the revenue reads as follows :- “6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

D.C.I.T., CC-3(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. FORUM PROJECT PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three captioned appeals of the revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.(Ss)A Nos.108,109&585/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Cc-3(2), Kolkata..................................................................……Appellant Vs. M/S Forum Projects Pvt. Ltd...........................……........……...…..…..Respondent 4/1, Red Cross Place, Dalhousie, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aadcs7575E] Appearances By: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, Cit(Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 30, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 05, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Dated 20.05.2022, 08.06.2022 & 25.11.2014 Respectively Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Contesting Therein The Confirmation Of Additions Made By The Assessing Officer (In Short ‘The A.O) In The Assessments Carried Out U/S 153A Of The Act. Since The Facts & Issues Involved In All These Appeals Are Identical, Hence These Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. First We Take Revenue’S Appeal In Ita No.108/Kol/2022 For Assessment Year 2010-11. I.T.(Ss)A Nos.108,109&585/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/S Forum Projects Pvt. Ltd.

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company has been in the business of development and construction of real estate projects. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had received substantial advances from various parties against which interest was paid after due deduction

MOHAMMED AHMED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 29, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2007-08 Mohammed Ahmed V/S. Acit, Circle-29, 3, 10/1/1A, Topsia Road Govt. Place (West), (South), Kolkata – 700 046 Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan No.Acxpa 6297 N] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act is not appropriate. Assessee has also cited case law in support of its claim as under:- a) CIT v. John 181 ITR 1 (Kar) b) CIT v. Rajkumar 318 ITR 462 (Del) c) Tarulata vs. CIT 108 ITR 345 (SC) It was also submitted that job work done by assessee

D.C.I.T., CC - 2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EKO DIAGNOSTIC PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act is assessable only in the hands of the shareholder of the lending company and since assessee was not a shareholder of the lending company, amount of loan could not be assessed in the hands of the assessee in terms of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 11. Since the facts

DCIT, C.C.-XVI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EASTERN MINERAL & TRADING AGENCY, ASANSOL

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue and corresponding cross objections of the assessee are dismissed as under:-

deemed dividend from the said company in the hands of the assessee u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 7. The ld.DR also submits that during the year under consideration the AO found that the assessee has received a total payment of 295,29,54,290/- from M/s. BECML

METALIND PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1241/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & I.T.A. No. 1242/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Metalind Private Ltd...........……………………………………....…………………………………………Appellant 51, Canal East Road Kolkata – 700 085 [Pan : Aaccm 2883 J] Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Kolkata.......…..…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri A.K. Singh, Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 12Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 10Th , 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- Both These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1, Kolkata, (Ld. Pr. Cit) Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (The ‘Act’), Both Dt. 22/03/2017, For The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. Both These Appeals Belong To The Same Assessee. Hence For The Sake Of Convenience, They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. The Assessee Is A Company & Is In The Business Of Real Estate & Related Activities. It Filed Its Original Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011-12 On 29/09/2011, Declaring Nil Income & For The Assessment Year 2012-13 On 29/09/2012, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.5,48,59,970/-. A Search & Seizure Operation Was Conducted U/S 132 Of The Act On The Assessee On 04/10/2012. Consequentially Notice U/S 153A Of The Act, Were Issued & The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income In Response Thereto Declaring The Same Income As That Disclosed By It In The Original Return Of Income For Both The Assessment Years. The Assessing

deemed dividend in favour of the assessee on facts as well as on law, we don't find it necessary to address the same issue on the ground of limitation of invoking jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. Hence we refrain to give our findings in this regard on the issue of limitation. 14 I.T.A. No. 1241/Kol/2017 Assessment Year

METALIND PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1241/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & I.T.A. No. 1242/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Metalind Private Ltd...........……………………………………....…………………………………………Appellant 51, Canal East Road Kolkata – 700 085 [Pan : Aaccm 2883 J] Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Kolkata.......…..…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri A.K. Singh, Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 12Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 10Th , 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- Both These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1, Kolkata, (Ld. Pr. Cit) Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (The ‘Act’), Both Dt. 22/03/2017, For The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. Both These Appeals Belong To The Same Assessee. Hence For The Sake Of Convenience, They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. The Assessee Is A Company & Is In The Business Of Real Estate & Related Activities. It Filed Its Original Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011-12 On 29/09/2011, Declaring Nil Income & For The Assessment Year 2012-13 On 29/09/2012, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.5,48,59,970/-. A Search & Seizure Operation Was Conducted U/S 132 Of The Act On The Assessee On 04/10/2012. Consequentially Notice U/S 153A Of The Act, Were Issued & The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income In Response Thereto Declaring The Same Income As That Disclosed By It In The Original Return Of Income For Both The Assessment Years. The Assessing

deemed dividend in favour of the assessee on facts as well as on law, we don't find it necessary to address the same issue on the ground of limitation of invoking jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. Hence we refrain to give our findings in this regard on the issue of limitation. 14 I.T.A. No. 1241/Kol/2017 Assessment Year

M/S/ RASHMI METALIKS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A/DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm ]

TDS certificates in Form No. 16A and the fact that the assessee is a registered contractor and had claimed deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act, were very much part of the record prior to the search & seizure operations. The Assessing Officer had considered them in his original assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, as well

M/S/ RASHMI METALIKS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A/DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm ]

TDS certificates in Form No. 16A and the fact that the assessee is a registered contractor and had claimed deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act, were very much part of the record prior to the search & seizure operations. The Assessing Officer had considered them in his original assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, as well

M/S/ RASHMI METALIKS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A/DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm ]

TDS certificates in Form No. 16A and the fact that the assessee is a registered contractor and had claimed deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act, were very much part of the record prior to the search & seizure operations. The Assessing Officer had considered them in his original assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, as well

M/S/ RASHMI METALIKS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A/DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm ]

TDS certificates in Form No. 16A and the fact that the assessee is a registered contractor and had claimed deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act, were very much part of the record prior to the search & seizure operations. The Assessing Officer had considered them in his original assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, as well

B.V.KAPADIA HUF,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T, CPC, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) and remit the matter back to the Ld. AO for grant of summary relief in respect of the credit for TDS relating to the dividend

M/S HOOGHLY MILLS PROJECTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Deemed dividend can be assessed only in the hands of a person who is a shareholder of the lender company and not in the hands of a person other than a shareholder. On the second question: The expression ‘shareholder’ referred to in section 2(22)(e) refers to both a registered shareholder and beneficial shareholder. If a person