M/S BHAGWATI VINTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-10(4), KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 133(6) of the Act. tion 133(6) of the Act. (vii) We note from a perusal of the paper book (vii) We note from a perusal of the paper book-2, pages 185 to 206 the 2, pages 185 to 206 the details of share applicant details of share applicant M/s. Flowtop Agency

M/S METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-12(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 133(6) of the Act. tion 133(6) of the Act. (vii) We note from a perusal of the paper book (vii) We note from a perusal of the paper book-2, pages 185 to 206 the 2, pages 185 to 206 the details of share applicant details of share applicant M/s. Flowtop Agency

NEXTGEN VYAPAAR ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 133(6) of the Act. section 133(6) of the Act. (v) We note from a perusal of the paper book (v) We note from a perusal of the paper book-2, pages 138 to 159 the 2, pages 138 to 159 the details of share applicant details of share applicant M/s. Shivarshi Construction Pvt. Ltd M/s. Shivarshi Construction

ANCHITA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-12(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 637/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-12(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 & I.T.A. No. 1067/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Pcit, Kolkata-2, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

6. The assessee has filed the return in response to the notice under section 148. The ld. Assessing Officer has issued notice under section 143(2) and supplied the copy of the reasons to the assessee. Against these reasons, assessee has filed objections running into 28 pages. Such objections are placed at pages no. 32 to 60 of the paper

ANCHITA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. P.C.I.T., KOLKATA - 2, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 637/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-12(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 & I.T.A. No. 1067/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Pcit, Kolkata-2, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

6. The assessee has filed the return in response to the notice under section 148. The ld. Assessing Officer has issued notice under section 143(2) and supplied the copy of the reasons to the assessee. Against these reasons, assessee has filed objections running into 28 pages. Such objections are placed at pages no. 32 to 60 of the paper

GARUD CREDIT & HOLDING PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 9(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 1270/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Garud Credit & Holding Pvt. Limited,.........Appellant D.J. Shah & Co., 2, Elgin Road, Kolkata-700020 [Pan: Aaacg9791P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-9(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Veekaas S. Sharma, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 06, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 01, 2023 O R D E R

reassessment proceedings, ld. Assessing Officer has called for complete details of the share capital and share premium of Rs.14,69,50,000/- to which the assessee has filed all relevant details, which were further utilized by the ld. Assessing Officer for the purpose of issuing notice under section 133(6

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.

reassessment pursuant to the first revisional order of First Ld. Pr. CIT dated 23.08.2016, which impugned action of the second Ld. Pr. CIT, according to him is without satisfying the requisite conditional precedent as stipulated in Section 263 of the Act and so bad in law. According to Ld. AR, the original first assessment order was selected for scrutiny through

PANACHE DEALTRADE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. P.C.I.T., CENTRAL - 2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 977/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Panache Dealtrade Pvt. Limited,…….………Appellant 1St Floor, Rup Chand Roy Street, Kolkata-700007, West Bengal [Pan:Aagcp0699B] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Kolkata-2,………………………………..………Respondent Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700107 Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Mita Rizvi, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit(D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 18, 2024 O R D E R

133(6) of the Act. Thus ld. A.R. 6 Panache Dealtrade Pvt. Limited argued that the issue was duly and fully examined by the ld. Assessing Officer before issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. Ld. A.R. further submitted that before recording the reasons all the transactions were verified and therefore were not part of the reasons recorded under

DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S DOTEX MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objections are also dismissed as infructuous

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

133(6) with regards to the genuineness of the share capital raised during the year, completed the assessment u/s 147/143(3) on 30.03.2012 assessing total income at Rs.42,449/-. Thereafter on 09.02.2015 the AO issued another notice u/s 148, which was served on the assessee on 19.02.2015. On assessee’s request, reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were furnished

SAMRAT FINVESTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENT. CIR. 4(2), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

Section 133(6) of the Act. 020. Further the assessee has duly furnished all the evidences necessary to substantiate creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions, i.e., for discharge of onus cast upon it u/s 68 of the Act as is evident from Page-2 in the assessment order, which is extracted as under:- ‘Shri Mukesh Gupta, FCA and AR appeared from

SAMRAT FINVESTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENT. CIR. 4(2), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

Section 133(6) of the Act. 020. Further the assessee has duly furnished all the evidences necessary to substantiate creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions, i.e., for discharge of onus cast upon it u/s 68 of the Act as is evident from Page-2 in the assessment order, which is extracted as under:- ‘Shri Mukesh Gupta, FCA and AR appeared from

SAMRAT FINVESTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 5(2) (NOW DCIT, CENT.CIR. 4(2)), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

Section 133(6) of the Act. 020. Further the assessee has duly furnished all the evidences necessary to substantiate creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions, i.e., for discharge of onus cast upon it u/s 68 of the Act as is evident from Page-2 in the assessment order, which is extracted as under:- ‘Shri Mukesh Gupta, FCA and AR appeared from

SAMRAT FINVESTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENT. CIR. 4(2), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

Section 133(6) of the Act. 020. Further the assessee has duly furnished all the evidences necessary to substantiate creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions, i.e., for discharge of onus cast upon it u/s 68 of the Act as is evident from Page-2 in the assessment order, which is extracted as under:- ‘Shri Mukesh Gupta, FCA and AR appeared from

A J MILL STORE AGENCY PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

reassessment completed under section 147 of the Act. The appellant has stated that the notice is a defective notice which is issued without any application of mind as the same was issued in a printed format without striking off the irrelevant portions of the said notice and that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer does not satisfy the requirements

A J MILL STORE AGENCY PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

reassessment completed under section 147 of the Act. The appellant has stated that the notice is a defective notice which is issued without any application of mind as the same was issued in a printed format without striking off the irrelevant portions of the said notice and that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer does not satisfy the requirements

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

6 ground that the Learned Assessing Officer passed the assessment order by erroneously applying the provisions of Section 149(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ITA Nos.: 179 & 180/KOL/2025 AYs: 2011-12 & 2015-16 Nezone Tubes Limited. 7. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred both in law and on facts by failing to adjudicate

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

6 ground that the Learned Assessing Officer passed the assessment order by erroneously applying the provisions of Section 149(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ITA Nos.: 179 & 180/KOL/2025 AYs: 2011-12 & 2015-16 Nezone Tubes Limited. 7. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred both in law and on facts by failing to adjudicate

SRIRAM TIE UP PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-9(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 1104/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Sriram Tie Up Pvt. Ltd...................................…………………………........................Appellant 147, Nilgunge Road, Belghoria, Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aamcs 6826 K] Ito, Wd 9(4)..…………………………………………………………..........................................Respondent P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069 Appearances By: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 14, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 21, 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 3, Kolkata Dated 10.03.2016 & The Solitary Issue Raised Therein Relates To The Addition Of Rs. 9,86,00,000/- Made By The A.O. & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) Under Section 68 By Treating The Share Capital Subscription As Unexplained Cash Credits.

133(6). 6. In the case of M/s. Sukanya Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO (ITA 291/Kol/2016 dated 15.12.2017) cited by the learned counsel for the assessee, a similar view has been taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal and the similar issue relating to the addition made under section 68 on account of share capital contribution by treating