M/S SHREENATH HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,HOWRAH vs. I.T.O.,WARD-5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble] I.T.A. No. 2390/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Shreenath Holding Pvt. Ltd…………...……………....……..…………..………………....……Appellant 33/34, Ramlal Mukherjee Lane 2Nd Floor Room No. 2D Howrah - 711106 [Pan: Aadcs 5887 P] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Kolkata…………………………..............….....….…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit, Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 24Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 26Th, 2020 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 2, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld.Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 17/10/2019, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Is A Company & Is Engaged In The Business Of Trading & Distribution Of Goods. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 16/08/2012 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.15,500/-. During The Year, The Assessee Raised Share Capital Including Premium Amounting To Rs.1,13,55,000/-. The Assessing Officer Conducted Enquiries & The Assessee Presented The Share Holders Including The Directors Of The Share Holding Companies Before The Assessing Officer. After Due Enquiry, The Assessing Officer Accepted The Explanations Of The Assessee That The Cash Credits In The Form Of Share Capital Were Genuine, Except In The Case Of M/S. Seacom Merchants, Which Had Applied For Shares. An Amount Of Rs. 20,00,000/- Pertaining To M/S. Seacom Merchants, Was Added.

801 (SC) and CIT vs. Durga Prasad SC) and CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) is further quoted during the cour (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) is further quoted during the course of hearing that se of hearing that the relevant evidence submitted during the course of assessment has to be the relevant evidence submitted during

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

801 (SC), to further record on the basis of the facts that the assessee had furnished the details such as copy of ledger account, bank statements, income tax returns, balance sheet etc. It was also recorded that notice under section 133(6) of the Act was issued to the said parties which were duly responded by them. The identity

DEPUTY COMMISSOENR OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

801 (SC), to further record on the basis of the facts that the assessee had furnished the details such as copy of ledger account, bank statements, income tax returns, balance sheet etc. It was also recorded that notice under section 133(6) of the Act was issued to the said parties which were duly responded by them. The identity

GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH GIFFORD LLP),KOLKATA vs. DDIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

disallowed the claim of the Assessee for deduction of the following expenses as prior period expenses: Invoice raised Amount (Rs.) Description of Period of work Date of invoice by work TKRA 17,13,499 Job GRSE 10.01.05 to 22.06.07 Modernisation 18.08.05 IMC 12,95,680 Infructuous 12.02.05 to 05.06.07 components 30.06.05 and after 38. The Assessee submitted before

GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH GIFFORD LLP),KOLKATA vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

disallowed the claim of the Assessee for deduction of the following expenses as prior period expenses: Invoice raised Amount (Rs.) Description of Period of work Date of invoice by work TKRA 17,13,499 Job GRSE 10.01.05 to 22.06.07 Modernisation 18.08.05 IMC 12,95,680 Infructuous 12.02.05 to 05.06.07 components 30.06.05 and after 38. The Assessee submitted before

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. NEWDEAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2007-08

801/- Income from capital gains Rs. 14,20,475/- From the above, it is clear that the assessee has claimed the interest expenditure from the business income on the borrowed fund which was utilized in the investment of shares and the same has resulted in the exempted income and the income which is subject to concessional rate of tax. Accordingly

DCIT, CC-XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI SATYANARAYAN PANDEY, HOWRAH

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

801 + Rs.7,346) deducted by Steel Authority of India Ltd. on the payment of bilty, freight charges of Rs.1,06,13,945/-( Rs.1,02,86,600 + Rs.3,27,345) to assessee on 31.03.2007. But from the list of sundry debtors it was revealed that an amount of Rs.84,13,343/- instead of Rs.1,06,13,945/-, was received as bilty

DCIT, CIR-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S AI CHAMPDANY INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.172/Kol/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

section 14A of IT Act read with Rule 8D of IT Rules, 1962. iii) That the appellant craves leave to add, alter and/or modify, substitute all or any of the grounds of appeal, during the course of hearing. 3. Ground No.1 raised by the Revenue relates to addition made on account of State Capital Investment Subsidy as Revenue in nature

DCIT, C.C.-3(4), KOLKATA vs. M/S TANISHQUE TRADE LINK PVT. LTD, HOWRAH

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 17/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tanishque Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata Vs Bhabatarini Apartment G.T. Road, Room No. 602 Howrah - 711201 [Pan : Aacct7512R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, Fca Revenue By : Shri Biswanath Das, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/01/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 24/09/2020, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That On Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As In Facts In Allowing The Bogus Share Capital Raised In The Books Of The Assessee Without Appreciating The Fact That The Assessee Failed To Discharge Its Primary Onus To Prove & Establish The Identity & Creditworthiness Of The Investor Companies & Genuineness Of The Transaction. 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As In Facts In Ignoring That The Identity & Creditworthiness Of The Shareholders & Even The Genuineness Of The Transactions Remained Unexplained. 3. That On Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Invoking His Powers U/S. 250(4) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 In Directing The Assessing Officer To Make Further Enquiry & Report The Results Of The

disallowance to be made u/s. 14A even after giving a categorical finding that the assessee has not earned any exempt income whatsoever. 8th Page is merely computation of total income and tax payable thereof. From the above, it is clear that the AO has not carried out any of the Directions given in the order u/s. 263 and made additions

NINESTAR MERCHANTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

801 (SC) and CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) is further quoted during the course of hearing that the relevant evidence submitted during the course of assessment has to be considered as per the human probabilities by removing all blinkers. Our attention is thereafter invited to the relevant nuances of such share subscription routing involving multiple

M/S SWETA COMMODITIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-10(4), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 1143/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 M/S. Sweta Commodities Pvt. Limited,.......Appellant C/O. Agarwal Vishwanath & Associates, 133/1/1A, S.N. Banerjee Road, Pushkal Bhawan, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700013 [Pan: Aalcs4112R] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-10(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, 3Rd Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

801 has expounded that revenue authorities are also supposed to consider the surrounding circumstances and apply the test of human probability. Apparently there was no reason as to why the share of this company would command so much share premium. Any normal prudent person who makes investment in 3 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 M/s. Sweta Commodities Pvt. Limited shares would

WELKIN TELECOM INFRA PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

801/-. Further, on perusal of page 81-83 of the paper book shows that a sum of Rs.4,987/- each was paid to 121 trainees on 08-08-2013 aggregating to Rs.6,03,427/-. He submitted that, these documents could not be produced before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings due to misplacement of relevant files by disgruntled

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SHREE HARIVANSH SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed and assessee’s Rule 27 application is allowed as discussed above

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

801/-, however has not accepted the assessee’s contention that the assessee has only incurred expenditure on STT of Rs.2,24,983/- and towards investment, other charges (investments) of Rs.14,749/- and offered Rs.2,39,732/- towards disallowance. The AO applying Rule 8D(2)(i) and 8D(2)(iii) made disallowance of Rs.9,30,504/- and Rs.27,366/- respectively. Since

GRAPHITE INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ADDI. COMMISSIONER OF INCIME TAX, RANGE - 11, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

801/- from the amount of value of electricity for the purpose of computing deduction under section 80IA. 22. We have heard the arguments of both the sides on this issue and also perused the relevant material on record. Although the ld. Counsel for the assessee has relied on the unreported decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court

D.C.I.T.,-CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), KOLKATA vs. M/S IDEAL HEIGHTS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

801/-, is no eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10). Total deduction claimed-by the assessee u/s. 80IB is Rs 46,93,10,980/- and the total sales of the undertaking is Rs 53,678, ,484/- as per Form 10CCB submitted by the assessee. Applying the same ratio the deduction us 80IB disallowed with respect to sales on account

ARSH IRON & STEEL LTD.,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIR-3, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 133(6) of the Act who have furnished the documents confirming the commission but failed to provide the details of the services rendered to the assessee. In view of above the AO has disallowed the commission expenses claimed by the assessee and added to the total income of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before

ITO, WD-6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S LUXURY VYAPAAR PVT.LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S.Godara, Jm]

801 (SC) that all the relevant documentary evidence filed before the courts or tribunal have to be appreciated applying test of human probabilities. All this resulted in the impugned unexplained share application money addition of Rs.31,69,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. 5. The CIT(A) reverses the Assessing Officer’s action as follows :- “ I have gone through

ITO, WD-6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S LINKPOINT DEALCOM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S.Godara, Jm]

801 (SC) that all the relevant documentary evidence filed before the courts or tribunal have to be appreciated applying test of human probabilities. All this resulted in the impugned unexplained share application money addition of Rs.31,69,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. 5. The CIT(A) reverses the Assessing Officer’s action as follows :- “ I have gone through