ITO, WARD - 11(3), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. LNB RENEWABLE ENERGY PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

disallowed and added back with the net profit of the assessee under section 56 (2) (viib) of the I.T. Act. [Addition

DCIT, CC-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. JUPITER INTERNATIONAL LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Cc-1(4), Kolkata ………….……………………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Jupiter International Limited..……………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Unnayanam, 20A, Ashutosh Chowdhury Avenue, Kol-19.. [Pan: Aaacj6956B] Appearances By: Shri P. N Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Nandini Sureka, Advocate, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 12, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.10.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014–15. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 197 Days & The Revenue Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Going Over The Said Petition, We Find Sufficient Reasons Behind The Delay & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

disallowances or additions:- 1. Additions under section 14A of the Act amounting to Rs. 4,78,76,015. 2. Additions under section 56(2)(viib

M/S. MICROFIRM CAPITAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey]

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, he gave certain directions to the Assessing Officer. 2.3. Aggrieved, both the assessee as well as the revenue is in appeal before us. 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Section 56(2)(viib

DCIT, CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MICROFIRM CAPITAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey]

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, he gave certain directions to the Assessing Officer. 2.3. Aggrieved, both the assessee as well as the revenue is in appeal before us. 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Section 56(2)(viib

SEEMA SUREKA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(3), KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowed by\nupholding that the father did not come under the definition of relatives. The\nsubmission of the assessee is that family was HUF and each of HUF family\nmembers have a separate legal status so the father should be considered as a\nrelative. In this aspect we have gone through the cited decision filed by the\nassessee passed

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 of the Act by which the share premium could have been ascertained and brought to tax. The Ld. AR also pointed out that only from AY 2013-14, the AO when considering section 68 of the Act could have even looked for the second source of the share capital & premium. In this assessment year (AY 2012-13) the onus

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

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

disallowed an amount of Rs. 57,482/- u/s. 14A of the Act and thus it is noted that second AO did not draw any adverse inference against the share capital and premium collected by the assessee after carrying out the aforesaid exercise as directed by the First Ld. Pr. CIT to him. This exercise carried out by the second

M/S AMITA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-

section 56(2)(viib) of the Act for the following reason given in paragraph no. 4 of his impugned order:- “I have considered the submissions made by the appellant. As there is no merit in the submission of the appellant and based on the facts and findings narrated by the ld. AO in the assessment order, the appeal

ITO, WARD - 23(2) , HOOGHLY vs. SHRI NAVARATAN DUGAR , HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2255/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15)

disallowances is attracted. Considering the extent of incorrectness, I am of the opinion that net profit rate of 1.00% is appropriate in this case. The figure of 1.00% of turnover of Rs.11,38,38,599/- works out to Rs. 11,38,386/- which in my view is sufficient to absorb all the inaccuracies in the improper and doubtful accounts. Accordingly

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.

disallowed an amount of Rs. 10,366/- u/s. 14A of the Act and thus it is noted that second AO did not draw any adverse inference against the share capital and premium collected by the assessee after carrying out the aforesaid exercise as directed by the First Ld. Pr. CIT to him. This exercise carried out by the second

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

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

disallowed an amount of Rs. 2,919/- u/s. 14A of the Act and thus it is noted that second AO did not draw any adverse inference against the share capital and premium collected by the assessee after carrying out the aforesaid exercise as directed by the First Ld. Pr. CIT to him. This exercise carried out by the second

M/S. TCG LIFESCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

disallowing an amount of Rs. 3,924 paid as interest on service tax. 6. Interest under section 2348 of the Act 6.1. The Ld. AO erred in levying Rs.23,24,948 as interest under section 234B of the Act. 7. Interest under section 234C of the Act 7.1. The Ld. AO erred in levying Rs.39,46,000 as interest under

M/S TCG LIFESCIENCE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No. 121/Kol/2016 is partly allowed while ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. Thus such capital account cannot be brought to tax as already discussed herein above while considering the challenge to the grounds as mentioned in impugned order e) ……….The ALP is meant to determine the real value of the transaction entered into between AEs. It is a re-computation exercise to be carried

M/S TCG LIFESCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No. 121/Kol/2016 is partly allowed while ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. Thus such capital account cannot be brought to tax as already discussed herein above while considering the challenge to the grounds as mentioned in impugned order e) ……….The ALP is meant to determine the real value of the transaction entered into between AEs. It is a re-computation exercise to be carried

JAYANTA KUMAR SARDAR,BARDHAMAN vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), DURGAPUR. , DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Anikesh Banerjee

disallowances are perverse, rather against evidence and material on record and without an iota of material or evidence to support and sustain the same. 2. (a) For that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned addition amounting to Rs. 5,44,730/- on account of the difference between the Registered Value

SIMPLICITY DEALERS PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD 9(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 57/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Simplicity Dealer Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 9(1), C/O. Niraj Agarwal Kolkata Vs 115, Cotton Street 1St Floor Burra Bazar Kolkata - 700007 [Pan : Aancs8168D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Fca Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27/09/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/01/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 16/12/2019, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Though The Registry Has Pointed Out That The Appeal Is Time Barred, However, In View Of The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Miscellaneous Application No. 665 Of 2021 In Smw(C) No. 3 Of 2020, The Period Of Filing Appeal During The Covid-19 Pandemic Is To Be Excluded For The Purpose Of Counting The Limitation Period. In View Of This, The Appeal Is Treated As Filed Within The Limitation Period.

disallowance in full. 7. For that the appellant craves leave to submit additional grounds and/or amend or alter the grounds already taken either at the time of hearing of the appeal or before.” 4. The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings noted that the assessee company had introduced Rs.2

SANSAR TRADING (P) LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(2), KOL , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

56(2)(viib) is effective from A.Y. 2013-14 relevant to determination of fair market value of share. Prior to above Section there has been no precedent for determination and valuation of Share Premium to be charged by the company issuing fresh share capital.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed its return of income

M/S. DOMINANT SALES AND SERVICE PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-6(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

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.35,00,00,000/ - which was unjustified

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