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.

37,00,000/- received from M/s. Skytouch Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd., vide cheque no. 388459, dt. 17/01/2012. An amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- received from M/s. Pragya Commodities Pvt. Ltd., vide cheque no. 440910, dt. 23/02/2012. A perusal of the annual accounts demonstrates that this company has income from operations of Rs.3.63 Lakhs, non-current assets worth Rs.75.76 Crores

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

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

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

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. MAA ANNAPURNA TRANSPORT AGENCY LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkery, Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

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

BIMAL KUMAR DROLIA,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-43(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

10 of 19 I.T.A. No.: 347/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Bimal Kumar Drolia. in the business of providing accommodation entries where crores of rupees are deposited and withdrawn. If the respondent-assessee does not have the details of the beneficiaries, then it cannot be understood how the money were deposited in the bank accounts of the respondent-assessee and withdrawn

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

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

Section 68 by Finance Bill, 2012 which has taken note of various decision of the court where the courts have drawn a distinction and emphasised that in case of private placement of shares the legal regime should be different from that which is followed in the case of a company seeking share capital from the public at large

SATYANARAYAN HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(2), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.444/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13

10,00,000/- and so on. Going through the foregoing details as well as the documents filed in form of ITR, Balance Sheet, bank statement, we are satisfied that the assessee has successfully discharged its primary onus by explaining the nature and source of the alleged sum and identity and creditworthiness of the share applicants and genuineness of the transaction

L B SAREE EMPORIUM,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 43, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

37 & 38 of the paper book. He is regularly assessed to tax and considerable income of Rs.14,53,140/- is declared. Loan confirmation letter is filed along with the copy of bank statement. Considering the income declared by the cash creditor, we do not 6 L B Saree Emporium find any reason to doubt the nature and source of unsecured

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

Bench: the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata.

10, 11 and 12].” (c) PCIT-2, Vs. Seaside Projects (P.) Ltd. reported in [2025] 175 taxmann.com 891 (Calcutta) Section 68, read with section 148, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Bogus loss) -Assessment year 2012-13 Assessing Officer received information that SFIO had carried out investigation in NSEL which had discussed issue of client code

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

Bench: the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata.

10, 11 and 12].” (c) PCIT-2, Vs. Seaside Projects (P.) Ltd. reported in [2025] 175 taxmann.com 891 (Calcutta) Section 68, read with section 148, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Bogus loss) -Assessment year 2012-13 Assessing Officer received information that SFIO had carried out investigation in NSEL which had discussed issue of client code

D.C.I.T., CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. NAVIN CONSTRUCTION & CREDIT PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross- objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

68 of the Act of Rs.10,07,00,000/-. Apart from this, the ld. Assessing Officer also disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act made towards expenditure for scientific research. The ld. Assessing Officer also made disallowance u/s 14A of the Act at Rs. 30,37,525/-. Along with other minor disallowances, income assessed

ITO, WARD-10(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MS SAVERA TOWERS 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. 2275/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ito, Ward-10(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Savera Towers Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aaocs 9744 C ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

10(4), Kolkata [ in short the ld AO] under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 12.03.2015 for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made towards share premium

LAL BABA SEAMLESS TUBES (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes, while the appeal of the Revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

10/-per share. The total capital received during the years of Rs.20,00,00,000 out of which the company give loan entries to other companies Rs.11,58,13,568. The assessee was one such beneficiary. The company had no owned fund to give loan entry to other companies. The AIR was asked to produced the director of the said

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. LAL BABA SEAMLESS TUBES PVT. LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes, while the appeal of the Revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

10/-per share. The total capital received during the years of Rs.20,00,00,000 out of which the company give loan entries to other companies Rs.11,58,13,568. The assessee was one such beneficiary. The company had no owned fund to give loan entry to other companies. The AIR was asked to produced the director of the said

M/S. BHIKSHU POLYMERS PVT. LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S. JEEVAN COMMOTRADE PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

section 68 of the Act was not exigible in the present case. Finally, reliance has been placed on the case of M/s Hirak Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kolkata, ITAT/242/2023, IA No. GA/1/2023 passed by the Hon'ble’ Calcutta High Court, dated 03.05.2024. 2.2. The Ld. Departmental Representative, on the other hand took

DEPUTY COMMISSOENR OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

37,500/- under section 68 of the Act on account of bogus unsecured loans despite the assessee failing to establish the genuineness of the transactions and the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors? 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law by allowing the appeal of the assessee by deleting the disallowance