ORIENTAL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

1)(d) of the Act although the corpus fund was utilized in terms of Para 5(i) of the Trust Deed dated 14.01.1978. As a matter of fact, the said Trust deed was approved at the time of granting registration under section 12AA and 80G of the Act. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, and delete

K.A.WIRES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-8(3), KOLKATA

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2012-13 K.A. Wires Ltd...………………………………………………………..................................……………..….......Appellant Chatterjee Intl Centre 11Th Floor Room No. 11 33A, Chowringhee Road Kolkata – 700 071 [Pan : Aadck 7401 M] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 8(3), Kolkata…..…................................................….…….....…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Adovate & Shri N.P. Jain, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri A.K. Nayak, Cit D/R & Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, Jcit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 4Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 22Nd, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld.Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 23/04/2019, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Is A Company & Is Engaged In The Business Of Zinc Manufacturing. It Filed Its Return Of Income Electronically For The Assessment Year 2012-13 On 07/09/2012 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.(-)Rs.37,99,257/-. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 30/03/2015 Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.1,02,00,743/- Interalia Making An Addition U/S 68 Of The Act Being Share Capital & Share Premium Received By The Company From Three (3) Associate Companies. Out Of This Rs,1,40,00,000/- Addition, The Assessing Officer States That A Protective Addition Of Rs.40,00,000/- Is Made In The Hands Of The Intermediary Companies. Aggrieved The Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal Without Success. The Ld. First Appellate Authority, Upheld The Order Of The Assessing Officer. 3. Further Aggrieved, The Assessee Is Before Us.

11 33A, Chowringhee Road Kolkata – 700 071 [PAN : AADCK 7401 M] Vs. Income Tax Officer, ward – 8(3), Kolkata…..…................................................….…….....…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri S.M. Surana, Adovate & Shri N.P. Jain, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri A.K. Nayak, CIT D/R & Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, JCIT D/R, appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : December

PANCHI BIBI WAKF ESTATE,KOLKATA vs. DDIT (E)-II, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 11(4A) of the Act has to be considered in the context of difference between property held in favour of assessee-trust and profit arisen to assessee-trust out of business. This Sec. 11(4A) of the Act is not applicable in the instant case as the property is held in assessee-trust. The GA was always

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.

68,583/- being employers' contribution under being employers' contribution under Section 43B of the Act. CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding that the assessee Section 43B of the Act. CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding that the assessee Section 43B of the Act. CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding that the assessee had made

ACIT, CIRCLE - 35, , KOLKATA vs. M/S. MACHINERY AGENCIES INDIA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act and consequently deleted the disallowance of Rs. 3,10,478/-, which was made with respect to interest and when the same has been confirmed by the ITAT, it cannot be said that ITAT has committed any error and/or illegality, which calls for the interference of this Court. In paragraph 11, ITAT

M/S PREMIER IRRIGATION ADRITEC (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 179 would includea penalty. The judgement of the Division Bench cannot now be reflective of thecorrect position in law in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in HarshadShantilal Mehta case in so far as the aforesaid issue is concerned. 4.3 Now, I refer to the judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case ofMaganbhaiHansrajbhai

M/S GREEN STAR CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 45, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2011-12

68 - Held, yes Section 41(1) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 -Remission or cessation of trading liability - Assessment year 2002-03 - Whether in view of facts stated under heading 'cash credits', since amounts-in-question were brought forward balances, they could not be added to income of assessee for year under consideration, as question of genuineness thereof could

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]

11,16,190/- and Brijbhumi Commosale Pvt. Ltd. of Rs.1,09,15,000/- totalling to Rs.7,69,71,990/- is added back to total income of the assessee u/s 68 for the A.Y 2014-15.” 4. Accordingly, the A.O made an addition of Rs.7,69,71,990/-. 5. Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before

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

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

11,16,190/- and Brijbhumi Commosale Pvt. Ltd. of Rs.1,09,15,000/- totalling to Rs.7,69,71,990/- is added back to total income of the assessee u/s 68 for the A.Y 2014-15.” 4. Accordingly, the A.O made an addition of Rs.7,69,71,990/-. 5. Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before

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

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

11,16,190/- and Brijbhumi Commosale Pvt. Ltd. of Rs.1,09,15,000/- totalling to Rs.7,69,71,990/- is added back to total income of the assessee u/s 68 for the A.Y 2014-15.” 4. Accordingly, the A.O made an addition of Rs.7,69,71,990/-. 5. Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before

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

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

11,16,190/- and Brijbhumi Commosale Pvt. Ltd. of Rs.1,09,15,000/- totalling to Rs.7,69,71,990/- is added back to total income of the assessee u/s 68 for the A.Y 2014-15.” 4. Accordingly, the A.O made an addition of Rs.7,69,71,990/-. 5. Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before

M/S ABHIJEET ENTERPRISE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

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

1, Kolkata for AY 2013-14dated 30.12.2016. 2. The main grievance of the assessee is against the action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.3,862.36 crores by way of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). 3. Brief facts of the case noted

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

HILTON COMMODITIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Hilton Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward 5(3) 9/12, Lal Bazar Street, Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Mercantile Building, Block-B, Chowringhee Square, Vs. 3Rd Floor, No.10, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacch1011P Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Ar Revenue By : Shri S Datta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025

1 each and share premium of Rs 249 per share. The total share capital and share premium received during the financial year 2011-12 was Rs 6,00,00,000/-. We find that all the shareholders had duly confirmed the transactions with the assessee company. The evidences which were filed before the ld AO with regard to this issue

SHRI RAGHVENDRA MOHTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax {Appeals}-10, Kolkata, erred in confirming the Addition of Rs.148657/- made on account of Bogus Commission. 4. That the ld. ClT{A}-10, Kolkata, erred in confirming to the extent of Rs.1626558/- made

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)

1. 6 7 M/s Splendour Villa Makers Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr. 2012-13 This company was having a paid up capital with free reserves and surplus of Rs.3,51,89,013/- as on 31/03/2012 and Rs.1,00,958/- as on 31/03/2011 respectively. The copy of the bank statement of the Company is duly available in the paper book. On examination

R A REALTORS PVT. LTD.,HOWRAH vs. I.T.O., WARD - 13(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

68 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but the appeal of the assessee was dismissed without considering the additional ground being legal ground taken by the assessee. 6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the assessee preferred appeal by taking the above legal ground that the concerned Assessing Officer passing

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]

1)], made the addition hurriedly, the assessee again had filed the documents before the Ld. CIT(A), who called for remand report from AO was of the opinion that assessee had not proved the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share subscribers and confirmed the addition made u/s. 68 of the Act. So, while examining

JASHOJIT MUKHERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 403/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Jashojit Mukherjee -Vs- Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata [Pan: Afapm 7208 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

11. We have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions. On almost identical facts, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Vardhaman Overseas Ltd.(supra), has clearly laid down that neither section 41(1) nor section 68