BALAKA VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 160 & 161/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), 9/12, Lal Bazar Street Vs Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcb2610B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R & Saurav Gupta, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Instant Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”). Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 29/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act & Ita No. 161/Kol/2023, Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 28/11/2023, Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act, For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds In Both These Appeals, But The Effective Issue Raised In Ita No. 161/Kol/2024 Is Against The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act For Unexplained Share Capital Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) & In Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Addition Made

Property Investments (P) Ltd -vs- ITO [2023] 152 taxmann.com 256 (Karnataka) (viii) PCIT -vs- Himachal Fibres Ltd. [2018] 98 taxmann.com 173 (SC) (ix) PCIT -vs- Himachal Fibres Ltd. [2018] 98 taxmann.com 172 (Delhi) CIT -vs- Dataware Private Limited ITAT No. 263 of 2011 : GA No. 2856 of 2011 (x) 7 I.T.A. No. 160 & 161/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Balaka Vinimay

VISH REALTY SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-5(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 250/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vish Realty Solutions Private Limited Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3), 55, Ezra Street Vs Kolkata 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcv9938N] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. Jhajharia, A/R Revenue By : Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/01/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/02/2024 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 Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -10 (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(E)”) Dt. 02/12/2019, Passed U/S 263 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. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Io, Kolkata Erred In Passing An Order Dated 2Nd Of December, 2019 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant Without Allowing Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 10, Kolkata Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Share Application Money Ofrs. 5,86,00,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On Irrelevant Considerations & Arbitrary Grounds.

property. Nil income declared in the return for Assessment Year 2012-13 furnished on 30/09/2012. Case selected for scrutiny through CASS followed by issuance of notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. During the year under consideration, the assessee received share application money of Rs.5,86,00,000/-. The assessee was asked to furnish various details

TRUE-MAN CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-7(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Properties Private Limited (Page no. 428 of the Balance Sheet (428), Bank statement, AACCL1422A paper book) (439), Incorporation certificate (440), Income Tax Return Acknowledgement (441), Master data as appearing on MCA (442), details of directors as appearing on MCA (442),- Memotandum and Articles of Association (443),. Copy of PAN Card (465) copy of share application (466), Copy of confirmation

M/S. INTER SECURITIES PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 7(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 609/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Inter Securities Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 7(3), 8, Camac Street Vs Kolkata 8Th Floor Suite No. 807 Kolkata - 700017 [Pan : Aacci 3971M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V. N. Dubey, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/09/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/10/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 3, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 15/02/2018, 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. That The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Is Bad In Law As Well As In Facts Of The Case. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law As Well As In Facts Of The Case By Confirming The Addiitons Made By Ld. A.O. Who Treated The Share Application Money Including Premium Of Rs.3,59,00,000/- As Bogus & Added Back The Same To The Total Income Of The Appellant U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2

Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO; ITA No. 33/Kol/2020 order dt. 20/09/2022 3) DCIT, vs. Narsingh Ispat Limited; ITA No. 225/Kol/2023 order dt. 26/07/2023 4) ITO vs. M.D. Ornaments Pvt. Ltd.; ITA No. 646/Kol/2020 order dt. 19/04/2023 5) Technico Metals Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT; ITA No. 1348/Chd/2017 order dt. 15/02/2019 5.1. On the other hand, the ld. D/R, vehemently argued supporting

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

68,210/- which may kindly be deleted.” 2.2 Grounds of appeal in respect of AY 2013-14 read as under: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the C.I.T.(A) erred in holding that ground No. l and 2 are not to be adjudicated separately while dismissing ground No.1 and 2 for statistical

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

68,210/- which may kindly be deleted.” 2.2 Grounds of appeal in respect of AY 2013-14 read as under: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the C.I.T.(A) erred in holding that ground No. l and 2 are not to be adjudicated separately while dismissing ground No.1 and 2 for statistical

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

68,210/- which may kindly be deleted.” 2.2 Grounds of appeal in respect of AY 2013-14 read as under: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the C.I.T.(A) erred in holding that ground No. l and 2 are not to be adjudicated separately while dismissing ground No.1 and 2 for statistical

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

68,210/- which may kindly be deleted.” 2.2 Grounds of appeal in respect of AY 2013-14 read as under: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the C.I.T.(A) erred in holding that ground No. l and 2 are not to be adjudicated separately while dismissing ground No.1 and 2 for statistical

NAVANSH VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 129 of the Act. But assessee, not filed any documents as requisitioned uls 142(1) of the Act on 06.12.2019 on the date fixed for furnishing the same. Assessee e-filed a single page letter on 14.12.2019 claimed to be filed in compliance to notice U/S 142(1) dtd. 06.12.2019, but the contents are not related to the information

M/S. DWARKA GOODS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

property so that the same can contribute to the creditworthiness of the investing company. However, in the instant case, subscribing company has not only filed complete details showing financial strength of the investor companies, sufficient funds available to make the investment but had also confirmed the transaction before the ld. AO. Thus, all the limbs of section 68 as normally

MAYURA MOHTA,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 29,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Circle-29 Mayura Mohta Aaykar Bhavan Dakshin, 2, Sumer Trinity Towers 202, Tower-I, New Prabhadevi Road, Gariahat Road (South), Vs. Prabha Devi, Mumbai-400 025 Kolkata-700031, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aevpm3232R Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Monalisha Pal Mukherjee, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2025

68,750/- the index cost of which worked out to 3,73,85,897/-. However, in the ITR filed for the current assessment year, the index cost was taken at ₹37,50,41,756/-, which is more by ₹1,18,819/-and has to be reduced accordingly. The ld. AO further noted that the assessee has claimed deduction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AXIS OVERSEAS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc 1(1), Kolkata Axis Overseas Limited Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, 21A, Shakespeare Sarani, Vs. 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700107, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagca7497L Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri P.N. Barnwal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.12.2025

68 of the Act on the ground that the assessee failed to discharge its onus to establish identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction in respect of the money received through cash trail. The CIT(A) in course of hearing the appeal called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer and in the said remand report the Assessing Officer

NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Property & Investment Private Limited is in the nature of loan which was taken for business on various dates and the same have been made through proper banking channels. Further, it is also stated by the appellant that the said loan was taken for very short duration and hence the same was also repaid in the next financial year

NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Property & Investment Private Limited is in the nature of loan which was taken for business on various dates and the same have been made through proper banking channels. Further, it is also stated by the appellant that the said loan was taken for very short duration and hence the same was also repaid in the next financial year

MAITHAN CERAMIC LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 7(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Properties Pvt Ltd\n10,675,616\n21.06.2011\n675,616\nChq\nYes\n10,675,616\n1.R.N.Mkukherjee, 5th Floor\n31.03.2012\n900,000\nChq\n1,000,000\n100,000\nKolkata-700 001\nPA No. AACCA 2514J\nHarvard Trading Pvt Ltd\n4,279,123\n21.06.2011\n279,123\nChq\nNo\n4,279,123\n1,R.N.Mkukherjee, 5th Floor\n31.03.2012\n360,000\nChq\n400

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. A R SULPHONATES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

68 (Bom) and of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Kolkata in the case of DCIT Vs. Tejender Singh (2012) 50 SOT 391 (Kol) and Ritz Suppliers Pvt. ltd. (2020) 113 taxmann.com 349 (Kol). 3.8. Ld. CIT(A) after considering the facts of the case and submissions made by the assessee noted about the undisputed fact that only the leasehold rights

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

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

property at lesser value as compared to the cost of construction declared by the assessee. For the sake of ready reference, we extract below the money spent year wise by the assessee and assessed by the DVO: AY Value reported in Books (In Value assessed by DVO (In Rs.) Rs.) 2014-15 Rs.79,76,789/- Rs.37

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

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

property at lesser value as compared to the cost of construction declared by the assessee. For the sake of ready reference, we extract below the money spent year wise by the assessee and assessed by the DVO: AY Value reported in Books (In Value assessed by DVO (In Rs.) Rs.) 2014-15 Rs.79,76,789/- Rs.37