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

section 68.” 14. We, therefore, respectfully following the ratio laid down in the above case laws and consistent with the view taken in the above referred decision of this Tribunal and also observing the fact that since the assessee has successfully proved the three necessary ingredients i.e., identity and creditworthiness of the share applicants and genuineness of the transactions

ITO, WARD-10(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S DREAMZ MET CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 2047/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ito, Ward-10(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Dreamz Met Construction Projects Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aagcm 2068 R ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 68 of the Act introduced with effect from April 1, 2013 will not have retrospective effect and would be effective only from the assessment year 2013-14. (c) In view of the above, question No. B as proposed also does not give rise to any 9 10 M/s Dreamz Met Construction Projects Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr. 2012-13 substantial question

ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S VISHNU DISTRIBUTORS PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is devoid of any merit, hence dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 50/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-2013

68 of the Act. The Revenue filed an appeal against the said judgement and the same was dismissed by the HonTjle Supreme Court in ITO vs. V.R. Global Energy (P) Ltd. [2020] 113 taxmann.com 31 (SC). The decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in case of CIT vs. Ritu Anurag Agarwal

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

exemption provided by the Act lies upon the assessee. [See :Parimisetti Seetharamamma (supra) at P. 5361. But, in view of Section 68

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

68 of the I.T. Act, 1961.  The AO also made disallowances u/s. 14A of the I.T. Act, 1961 even though no income was earned which could have been claimed as exempt. The AO did so by way of referring to Board Circular No. 5/2014 dated 11.12.2014. DECISION : In this case, the assessment was completed u/s. 147 read with section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SOMANI SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

Bench: the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata.

68. 3. That the revenue reserves its rights to substantiate, modify, delete supplement and/or alter any or all grounds of appeal at any the time of appeal proceedings.” 3. Before us the Ld. DR assailed the action of Ld. CIT(A) by stating that the assessee could not conclusively demonstrate the kind of good financials that could have attracted

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SOMANI SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

Bench: the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata.

68. 3. That the revenue reserves its rights to substantiate, modify, delete supplement and/or alter any or all grounds of appeal at any the time of appeal proceedings.” 3. Before us the Ld. DR assailed the action of Ld. CIT(A) by stating that the assessee could not conclusively demonstrate the kind of good financials that could have attracted

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA vs. EDMOND FINVEST PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 68 of the Act.” 15. The Hon’ble Supreme court, thus, has held that once the assessee has submitted the documents relating to identity, genuineness of the transaction, and credit-worthiness of the subscribers, then the AO is duty bound conduct to conduct an independent enquiry to verify the same. However, as noted above, ld. AO in this case

ELEGANT DEALMARK PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed, with Ground No

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

Section 68 of the Act have not been discharged and thus, the action of the authorities below is confirmed and the appeal on this point is dismissed. 3. Regarding the addition of Rs. 9,647/- made u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules, it is evident that the appellant has not earned any exempt

ANIL KUMAR AGARWALA,SILIGURI vs. I.T.O.,WARD-1(1), SILIGURI

In the result, all the appeals of all the captioned assessees are dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

exempt income under section 10(38) of the Act and made an addition under section 68 of the Act for bogus

MAMTA DEVI AGARWALA,SILIGURI vs. I.T.O.,WARD-2(1), SILIGURI

In the result, all the appeals of all the captioned assessees are dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

exempt income under section 10(38) of the Act and made an addition under section 68 of the Act for bogus

RAJENDRA KUMAR GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-36(1), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of all the captioned assessees are dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

exempt income under section 10(38) of the Act and made an addition under section 68 of the Act for bogus

ARUN ROY ,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, SILIGURI

In the result, all the appeals of all the captioned assessees are dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

exempt income under section 10(38) of the Act and made an addition under section 68 of the Act for bogus

SHRUTI MUNDHRA ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(2) , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of all the captioned assessees are dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

exempt income under section 10(38) of the Act and made an addition under section 68 of the Act for bogus

SUSHILA DEVI MUNDHRA ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(2) , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of all the captioned assessees are dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

exempt income under section 10(38) of the Act and made an addition under section 68 of the Act for bogus

SUMIT BAJAJ ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(2) , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of all the captioned assessees are dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

exempt income under section 10(38) of the Act and made an addition under section 68 of the Act for bogus

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

section 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

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BURDWAN, BURDWAN vs. M/S. BARDHAMAN DHARMARAJ PAPER MILL PVT. LTD., BURDWAN

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year : 2015-16

section 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