BIDIT FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.579/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

section 68 is prospective and applicable only from assessment year 2013-14. With this background, now we shall proceed to examine in the assessee`s case under consideration, whether assessee has discharged his onus toprove, prima facie, the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share capital and share premium received by it from share subscribers companies. 9. We note

ITO, WARD-12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SPLENDOUR VILLA MAKERS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1768/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ito, Ward-12(3), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Splendour Villa Makers Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aahcs 9726 M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

10. We find considerable force of the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has merely noticed that since the summons issued before assessment returned unserved and no one came forward to prove. Therefore, it shall be assumed that the assessee failed to prove the existence of the creditors or for that matter the creditworthiness

ITO, WARD - 6(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. DELIGHT GRIH NIRMAN PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1755/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

10,00,000/- Commercial Pvt. Floor, Tollygunge, Kol- Ltd. 29. PAN:AADCS6468E Total 5,00,00,000/- From the paper book submitted by the ld counsel, where we note that the aforesaid shareholders had submitted the following relevant details as called for and had confirmed the transaction with the assessee company. The evidence which were filed before the AO, included

ITO, WD-1(1), SILIGURI, SILIGURI vs. M/S CACHAR KING PLANTATIONS PVT. LTD., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Siliguri..………......……….........…………..………….…................Appellant Vs. M/S. Cachar King Plantations Pvt. Ltd..……...........…………..……………….…...……..…….......Respondent Situvita Tea Factory Bidhan Nagar Siliguri [Pan : Aabcc 0744 P] Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 12Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16Th , 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Siliguri, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 27/05/2015, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Is A Company & Is In The Business Of Investment In Shares & Securities. For The Assessment Year 2012-13, It E-Filed Its Original Return Of Income On 22/09/2012, Disclosing Total Business Income At Rs.3,71,534/-. The Assessment Order Was Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act, On 30/03/2015, Making An Addition Of Unexplained Cash Credit To The Tune Of Rs.1,30,00,000/-, U/S 68 Of The Act. This Was Set Off Against Carried Forward Losses & Gross Total Balance Was Determined At –Nil- Aggrieved The Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal. The Ld. First Appellate Authority Deleted The Addition For The Reasons Given In His Order.

Section 68 of the Act. Therefore, we do not want to interfere in the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) which is confirmed and consequently the appeal of Revenue is dismissed. ” 8.2. The ‘A’ Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. M/s. Maa Amba Towers Ltd.ITA No.1381/Kol/2015, Assessment Year 2012-13; order dt. 12/10/2018 under similar

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.

10/- each as highly exorbitant. Case exorbitant. Case laws Sumati Dayal vs. CIT Sumati Dayal vs. CIT(1995) 214 ITR 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

DOLPHIN GOODS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-6(1), KOLKATA

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

20. In the case of Nemi Chand Kothari 136 Taxman 213, (supra), the Hon'ble Guahati High Court hasthrown light on another aspect touching the issue of onus on assessee under section 68, by holding that the same should be decided by taking into consideration the provision of section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that

ITO, WD-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TRITIUM COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Kolkata.………......……….........…………..………….…................Appellant Vs. M/S. Tritium Commodities………..........….……...........…………..……………….…...……..…….......Respondent 7, Babulal Lane Kolkata – 700 007 [Pan : Aacct 8286 G] Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sankar Halder, Addl. Cit Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 6Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 28Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 15/10/2015, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Assessee Is A Company & Is In The Business Of Investment In Shares & Securities. For The Assessment Year 2012-13, It Filed Its Return Of Income On 27/09/2017, Disclosing Nil Income. It Filed Its Original Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2008-09, On 22/10/2008, Declaring Total Loss Or Rs.14,726/-. The Assessment Order Was Passed U/S 147/143(3) Of The Act, On 24/06/2010. Thereafter The Ld. Cit(A), Passed An Order U/S 263 Of The Act, Setting Aside The Assessment Order Dt. 24/06/2010. The Assessing Officer Passed The Impugned Fresh Order In Pursuance To The Order U/S 263 Of The Act, Dt. 31/03/2014, Making An Addition Of The Share Application Money Of Rs.2.07 Crores U/S 68 Of The Act. Aggrieved The Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal. The Ld. First Appellate Authority Deleted The Addition For The Reasons Given In His Order.

Section 68 of the Act. Therefore, we do not want to interfere in the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) which is confirmed and consequently the appeal of Revenue is dismissed. ” 6.2. The ‘A’ Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. M/s. Maa Amba Towers Ltd.ITA No.1381/Kol/2015, Assessment Year 2012-13; order dt. 12/10/2018 under similar

DCIT, CIR.-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S JAGANNATH BANWARILAL TEXOFABS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

20-05-2016 for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. The main grievance of the revenue is against the action of the ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition made by the AO u/s. 68 of the Act in respect of addition made by the AO on share subscription money received during the year. 3. Brief facts of the case

M/S. MATARANI VINTRADE PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 15(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M. Jagtap, V.P (Kz) & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13

10- 01-2011 has held: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the assessment order as the transaction entered into by the assessee was a scheme for laundering black money into white money or accounted money and the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have held that the assessee

KANCHAN PLYWOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., ,JALPAIGURI vs. ITO, WARD - 1(2), JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

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

20,000 6 M/s. Kanchan Plywood Products Pvt. Ltd. AY- 2012-13 10. We note that the AO at page 2 of his assessment order has acknowledged the fact that share subscribing companies have filed the following documents before him pursuant to notice issued by him u/s 133(6) of the Act: “1. Copy of letter regarding detailing share application

WEARIT GLOBAL LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

section 133(6) I.T.A No. 55/Kol/2020,I.T.A. No.20/Kol/2019, I.T.A. No.2191/Kol/2018 & I.T.A. No.115/Kol/2020 M/s Wearit Global Ltd. Assessment years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2016-17 notice, pursuant to which, when the A.O had issued summons u/s 131of the Act, instead of notices u/s 133(6) as directed by him, the Ld. CIT(A) found fault with the action

J.C.I.T.(OSD),CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S WERIT GLOBAL LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

section 133(6) I.T.A No. 55/Kol/2020,I.T.A. No.20/Kol/2019, I.T.A. No.2191/Kol/2018 & I.T.A. No.115/Kol/2020 M/s Wearit Global Ltd. Assessment years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2016-17 notice, pursuant to which, when the A.O had issued summons u/s 131of the Act, instead of notices u/s 133(6) as directed by him, the Ld. CIT(A) found fault with the action

DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S. WEARIT GLOBAL LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

section 133(6) I.T.A No. 55/Kol/2020,I.T.A. No.20/Kol/2019, I.T.A. No.2191/Kol/2018 & I.T.A. No.115/Kol/2020 M/s Wearit Global Ltd. Assessment years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2016-17 notice, pursuant to which, when the A.O had issued summons u/s 131of the Act, instead of notices u/s 133(6) as directed by him, the Ld. CIT(A) found fault with the action

JCIT(OSD),CIR.-12(1) , KOLKATA vs. M/S WEARIT GLOBAL LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

section 133(6) I.T.A No. 55/Kol/2020,I.T.A. No.20/Kol/2019, I.T.A. No.2191/Kol/2018 & I.T.A. No.115/Kol/2020 M/s Wearit Global Ltd. Assessment years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2016-17 notice, pursuant to which, when the A.O had issued summons u/s 131of the Act, instead of notices u/s 133(6) as directed by him, the Ld. CIT(A) found fault with the action

I.T.O.,WARD-9(3), KOLKATA vs. M/S REWARD HIRISE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

20-01-1986. The company had a paid up capital represented by 8,60,880 shares of Rs. 10/- each totalling Rs. 86,08,800/- as on 31-03- 2013 and a free reserve and surplus of Rs. 4,25,38,633/- as on 31-03-2013. In the A.Y under consideration, the assessee had collected an amount of Rs.5

I.T.O.,WARD-9(3), KOLKATA vs. M/S REWARD HIRISE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

20-01-1986. The company had a paid up capital represented by 8,60,880 shares of Rs. 10/- each totalling Rs. 86,08,800/- as on 31-03- 2013 and a free reserve and surplus of Rs. 4,25,38,633/- as on 31-03-2013. In the A.Y under consideration, the assessee had collected an amount of Rs.5

TRADELINK CARRYING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-4(1), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkery, Am ]

20-01-1986. The company had a paid up capital represented by 8,60,880 shares of Rs. 10/- each totalling Rs. 86,08,800/- as on 31-03- 2013 and a free reserve and surplus of Rs. 4,25,38,633/- as on 31-03-2013. In the A.Y under consideration, the assessee had collected an amount of Rs.5

FIZAAN COMMOTRADE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-15(1), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

10- 01-2011 has held: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the assessment order as the transaction entered into by the assessee was a scheme for laundering black money into white money or accounted money and the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have held that the assessee