D.C.I.T., CC-3(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. FORUM PROJECT PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three captioned appeals of the revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.(Ss)A Nos.108,109&585/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Cc-3(2), Kolkata..................................................................……Appellant Vs. M/S Forum Projects Pvt. Ltd...........................……........……...…..…..Respondent 4/1, Red Cross Place, Dalhousie, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aadcs7575E] Appearances By: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, Cit(Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 30, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 05, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Dated 20.05.2022, 08.06.2022 & 25.11.2014 Respectively Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Contesting Therein The Confirmation Of Additions Made By The Assessing Officer (In Short ‘The A.O) In The Assessments Carried Out U/S 153A Of The Act. Since The Facts & Issues Involved In All These Appeals Are Identical, Hence These Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. First We Take Revenue’S Appeal In Ita No.108/Kol/2022 For Assessment Year 2010-11. I.T.(Ss)A Nos.108,109&585/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/S Forum Projects Pvt. Ltd.

68,796/. Thereafter, rejecting all the explanations of the appellant, the AO made additions on account of treating this loan as deemed dividend, and made additions accordingly, restricting the actual quantum of addition - and therefore deemed dividend- to the amount of accumulated profits available for disbursement. During appeal the appellant has stated that the AO completely ignored all the facts

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. THE HOOGHLY MILLS CO. LTD., KOLKATA

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

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

deemed dividend u/s.2(22)( e ) can be made in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Consequently Gr.No.2 raised by the revenue is dismissed. 30. Ground no.3 raised by the Revenue reads as follows: “3. That the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance on account of expenditure relating to earlier year.” 31. Ground

BALHANUMAN COMMODEAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(4), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13

deemed to be not satisfactory, unless [As amended by Finance Act, 2012, w.e.f. 1.4.2013): (a) The person, being a resident in whose name such credit is recorded in the books of such company, also offers an explanation about the nature and source of such sum so credited; and (b) Such explanation in the opinion of the Assessing Officer has been

SMT. SANGITA JAIN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 36(3), KOLKATA

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

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

deemed dividend. Clause (ii) of section 2(22)(e) reads as under- "Any advance or loan made to a shareholder or the said concern by a company in the ordinary course of I.T.A. No. 1817/KOL./2009 Assessment year: 2006-2007 Page 4 of 8 its business, where the lending of money is a substantial part of the business

MANAV KUMAR SARAF,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-37, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-

section 2(22)(e) of the Act and since M/s. Akshat Plywoods Pvt. Ltd. was having sufficient reserve and surplus, which was more than the loans and advances given to the assessee, the amount of Rs.7,68,000/- was added by the Assessing Officer to the total income of the assessee as deemed dividend

ITO, WARD-10(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S POSITIVE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

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

dividends, warrants etc. have to be sent and the relationship is a continuing one. In such cases therefore the assessee cannot simply furnish details and remain quiet even when summons issued to the shareholders u/s.131 ... 30 . …………….. what we perceive and regard as correct position of law is that the Court or Tribunal should be convinced about the identity, creditworthiness

ITO, WARD-10(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S GATEWAY ENCLAVE PVT.LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

dividends, warrants etc. have to be sent and the relationship is a continuing one. In such cases therefore the assessee cannot simply furnish details and remain quiet even when summons issued to the shareholders u/s.131 ... 30 . …………….. what we perceive and regard as correct position of law is that the Court or Tribunal should be convinced about the identity, creditworthiness

MR. MANISH MIMANI,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T.(OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-V, KOLAKTA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

68,646/- as ‘Deemed I.T.A. No. 2873/KOL./2013 Assessment year: 2007-2008 Page 3 of 7 Dividend’ received by the appellant assessee in terms of section

KUNJ ALLOYS PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. A.C.I.T., CIR-2, BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e). The appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed. 6. The solitary issue involved in the appeal of the Revenue relates to the deletion by the ld. CIT(Appeals) of the addition of Rs.1,45,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of share application money under section 68

GRAFTON MERCHANT PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)/KOLKATA

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

deemed fit to substantiate the identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribers and genuineness of the transactions thereon. Towards this end, the ld. AO issued summons to the directors of the assessee company. It is recorded in the ld. AO’s order that the assessee was asked to produce the directors of the subscribing companies/investors to establish their identity

SHRI SAHADEB PAIK ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, KOLKATA - 17, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.768/Kol/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

deemed dividend") under clause (e) of section 2(22) of the Act. The amount of Rs. 32,13,367 represented the provision for the interest which was to be paid by the assessee to AMPL on the old outstanding loan of Rs.1,76,39,425 and a further loan of Rs. 11,68

JHV CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed but the order of the Pr

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

deemed dividend in terms of section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since no incriminating material was found in the course of the search and seizure operation carried out in the case of the assessee, the assessment was made u/s 153A of the Act without taking any adverse view for the unsecured loan received from M/s. Welcome

MR. MANISH MIMANI,KOLKATA vs. CIT, CENTRAL - I, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08 Mr.Manish Mimani -Versus- C.I.T., Central-I, Kolkata Kolkata (Pan:Aetpm1173K) (Appellant ) (Respondent)

Deemed Dividend' U/S 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by an amount of Rs.27,68,646/- being the debit balance of the appellant with M/s Ganesh Wheat Products Pvt. Ltd. during the period from 01.11.2006 to 05.03.2007, which was required to be added in the hands of the. appellant. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances

DCIT, CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S EIH LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

dividend income alone , are to be considered while working out the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules as 3 A.Yrs.2011-12 has been held by the decision of this tribunal in the case of REI Agro Ltd reported in 144 ITD 141. But we find that if the disallowance made under second limb of Rule

EIH LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

dividend income alone , are to be considered while working out the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules as 3 A.Yrs.2011-12 has been held by the decision of this tribunal in the case of REI Agro Ltd reported in 144 ITD 141. But we find that if the disallowance made under second limb of Rule

SINGHANIA & SONS (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 10(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble Vice-, Kz) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Singhania & Sons Pvt. Ltd…………...............................................................………………….............Appellant 3D, Duckback House 41, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aadcs 6078 A] Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Nfac...............................................………..…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Katarua, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

dividend and the same, therefore, was liable to be disallowed as per Clause(i) of Rule llowed as per Clause(i) of Rule 8D(2) as rightly held by the authorities below. As regards the balance disallowance of 8D(2) as rightly held by the authorities below. As regards the balance disallowance of 8D(2) as rightly held

UNIVERSAL TRADING COMPANY LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

deemed total income u/s 115JB of the Act was taken at ₹82,63,998/- as shown by the assessee in the return of income. However, while giving credit of MAT, the claim of refund was reduced by ₹17,338/- and the DDT (Dividend Distribution Tax) refund of ₹22,38,770/- was not allowed as the MAT credit for income

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TCG URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1649/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit, Cir-2(2), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Tcg Urban Infrastructure

deemed dividend to the extent of their Reserves and Surplus. (i) Boulevard Services Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 3,80,00,000 (ii) TCG Software Parks Pvt. Ltd Rs. 9,95,00,000 Total Rs.13,75,00,000 Apart from this, the assessee has suo moto disallowed a sum of Rs.2,93,82,245/- under section