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

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

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

100 wherein it was held that section 34 of the 1922 Act, conferred jurisdiction on the ITO to reopen an assessment subject to service of notice within the prescribed period. Therefore, service of notice within limitation was the foundations of jurisdiction. The High Court, accordingly, quashed the notice for reassessment issued under section 147(6). On appeal

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravii.T.A. No. 2271/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, Ward-10(4), Kolkata.................................………....………………...…………………….….Appellant

100/- from the very same shareholders towards share premium. The share capital received by the assessee has been duly accepted by the ld. AO within the ken of section 68

M/S WISLEY REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-11(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 55/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 M/S. Wisley Real Estate Pvt. Ltd.,…..........Appellant 86C, Viswakarma, 1St Floor, Topsia Road, Tiljala, Kolkata-700046 [Pan:Aakcs8704L] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……..........................Respondent Ward-11(3), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri A.K. Tulsyan, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 18Th March, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: June 6Th , 2024 O R D E R

section 68 of the Act for the alleged sum and assessed the income at Rs.1,76,57,500/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). It was submitted by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) that the main object of the assessee-company is Real estate developments in various fields. The promoters

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

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 2270/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ito, Ward-10(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Trend Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aadct 6373 M ] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2273/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ito, Ward-10(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Happy Bagans Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aacch 3712 K ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

100/- from the very same shareholders towards share premium. The share capital received by the assessee has been duly accepted by the ld. AO within the ken of section 68

ITO, WARD-10(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TREND INFRA DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 2270/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ito, Ward-10(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Trend Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aadct 6373 M ] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2273/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ito, Ward-10(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Happy Bagans Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aacch 3712 K ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

100/- from the very same shareholders towards share premium. The share capital received by the assessee has been duly accepted by the ld. AO within the ken of section 68

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

68 read with section 158BBE of the Act. 9. The addition of Rs.4,39,92,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged undisclosed sale was challenged by the assessee in the appeal filed before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and after considering the submissions made by the assessee as well as the material available on record

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

68 read with section 158BBE of the Act. 9. The addition of Rs.4,39,92,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged undisclosed sale was challenged by the assessee in the appeal filed before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and after considering the submissions made by the assessee as well as the material available on record

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. The appellant has furnished name, address and PAN of loan creditors, loan confirmations duly signed, ledger accounts, copies of audited financial statements of lenders, relevant bank statements, etc. The loan transactions are duly reflected in the books of accounts and bank statements of the loan creditor companies. The appellant company is a registered NBFC

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

section 68 in the context of the facts of the case. The assessing officer issued notices u/s 133(6) 14 share subscribers, calling for certain evidences, among which were: (i)copy of share application Form and also copy of share allotment letter. (ii)details of shares that have been allotted with distinctive nos. of shares. (iii)name address

M/S SWIFT VINTRADE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. CIT, KOLKATA-1I, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10

100 companies operated by the entry operator the total artificial capital would be Rs. 250 crores. The balance sheet of such companies would typically show share capital and reserve (premium) on the liability side and fictitious assets like investment in unquoted shares on the asset side. The investments are also in the shares of the own companies of the operator

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. SDR MEGHNATH INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

100/- per share). The case of the appellant was selected for scrutiny through CASS. The appellant duly complied with one notice issued by the AO. Complete details of shares of the allottee were duly furnished along with the relevant documents. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the appellant was asked to submit details with regard to the sheer application money

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]

100/- from the very same shareholders towards share premium. The share capital received by the assessee has been duly accepted by the ld. AO within the ken of section 68

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]

100/- from the very same shareholders towards share premium. The share capital received by the assessee has been duly accepted by the ld. AO within the ken of section 68

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 68 to the credits not involving any receipt or inflow of cash in the relevant year . ITA No.910 & 1187/Kol/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 ACIT Cir-1/2 Bwn Vs. M/s Bardhaman Dharmaraj Paper Mill Pvt. Ltd. Page 12 Moreover, the view taken by the Tribunal in the said case is contrary to the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High

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 68 to the credits not involving any receipt or inflow of cash in the relevant year . ITA No.910 & 1187/Kol/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 ACIT Cir-1/2 Bwn Vs. M/s Bardhaman Dharmaraj Paper Mill Pvt. Ltd. Page 12 Moreover, the view taken by the Tribunal in the said case is contrary to the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High