M/S EVAN VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,AGRA vs. PR, C.I.T.-4, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

56(2)(viib) has been inserted (treating premium in excess of fair value as an income from Other Source) with effect from assessment year 2013-2014 and are not applicable in the year under assessment, i.e. till A.Y 2012-13, there was no law/provisions in relation to the amount of premium at which the shares should have been issued

M/S BRIDHI DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD.,AGRA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

56(2)(viib) has been inserted (treating premium in excess of fair value as an income from Other Source) with effect from assessment year 2013-2014 and are not applicable in the year under assessment, i.e till A.Y 2012-13, there was no law/provisions in relation to the amount of premium at which the shares should have been issued

AMRITRASHI INFRA(P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.C.I.T.-4, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2012-13 Amritrashi Infra Private Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax- (Pan: Aakca2544E) 4, Kolkata.

56(2)(viib): "Where a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, receives, in any previous year, from any person being a resident, any consideration for issue of shares that exceeds the face value of such shares, the aggregate consideration received for such shares as exceeds the fair market value of the shares: Provided that

D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. WISE INVESTMENT PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 163/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 D.C.I.T. Central Circle – 1(4), Kolkata M/S. Wise Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs 3Rd Floor 5, Govind Chand Dhar Lane Kolkata - 700001 [Pan: Aaacw3141R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/11/2023 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 -21, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 26/12/2022, 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. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit (A) Is Justified In Deleting Addition Made U/S. 68 Of Rs.32,50,00,000/- Ignoring The Remand Report Dated 20.07.2022 Wherein The Report Categorically Stated That The Share Applicant Company Has No Creditworthiness To Invest In The Assesses Company. 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit (A) Was Erroneous As It Had Not Taken Cognizance Of The Fact That The 2

56(2)(viib) of the Act - even though it may fairly be stated that the AO has not tried to take this view either in his assessment order or in the remand report. In conclusion, I find that the AO has not doubted the identities, and creditworthiness of same set of share subscribers from whom the appellant accepted share capital

M/S GOODPOINT STOCKIST PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-4, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Shrigirishagrawal, Am]

56(2)(viib): "Where a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, receives, in any previous year, from any person being a resident, any consideration for issue of shares that exceeds the face value of such shares, the 14 Goodpoint Stockist Pvt. Ltd. AY: 2012-13 aggregate consideration received for such shares as exceeds

M/S. ARMAN ADVISORY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR. CIT-4, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am]

56(2)(viib): "Where a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, receives, in any previous year, from any person being a resident, any 15 M/s Arman Advisory Pvt. Ltd. AY: 2012-13 consideration for issue of shares that exceeds the face value of such shares, the aggregate consideration received for such shares as exceeds

ITO,WARD-8(2),KOL, KOLKATA vs. M/S. INDUS REALTY PVT. LTD. , KOLKATA.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

purchasing a dud share at an exorbitant price is justified or not, it is for the businesses to take a call. Moreover, all the share applicants are group companies and hence situations may arise where funds are transferred from one to another depending upon their consolidated business strategy and outlook. In any case, while suspicion may arise that the transaction

M/S. BARDHAMAN DHARMARAJ PAPER MILL PVT. LTD.,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BURDWAN

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year : 2015-16

56(viib) has been introduced." As another important aspect which should also be borne in mind in this case. These shares were received after paying huge premium by the allottees. These were subsequently transferred at face value or even at discount. This means that on transfer of shares the allotee did not receive any premium. This means that huge amount

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BURDWAN, BURDWAN vs. M/S. BARDHAMAN DHARMARAJ PAPER MILL PVT. LTD., BURDWAN

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year : 2015-16

56(viib) has been introduced." As another important aspect which should also be borne in mind in this case. These shares were received after paying huge premium by the allottees. These were subsequently transferred at face value or even at discount. This means that on transfer of shares the allotee did not receive any premium. This means that huge amount

M/S. NEXCARE AGENCY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

56(2)(viib) came into force from the assessment year under consideration nor the source of source as required under the amended provisions of section 68. 3. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the AO in adding back Rs. 50,00,00,000/- which was unjustified

ITO, WD-5(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S SAFELINE MARKETING PVT. LTD, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

bogus entries of name lenders. In the facts of the case, in spite of best efforts made by the assessing officer, he could not verify the same as there was no response from the companies to whom share were allotted on private placement basis. Thus, the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous in holding that the raised share