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]

Section 68 could not be invoked in the given facts of the case. The relevant extracts of the judgment are as under: “26. This case is distinguishable from the case of CIT v. Lovely Export (P.) Ltd. [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC) in that the transactions were only book transactions, and there was no cash receipt. The decisions

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)

124(cal) and approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisioncited as 2017-TIOL-13-SC-IT dated 09.01.2017. M/s Delight GrihNirman Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2012-13 3. That the appellant craves for leave to add, delete amend or modify any ground before or at thetime of appellate proceedings." 3. The appeal filed by the Revenue

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

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]

124 (Cal) has distinguished the decision of M/s. Lovely Exports Ltd. case. It was pointed out that the said decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has been confirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2017) 77 taxmann.com 284. 4. He also submitted that besides it has been held in various judicial pronouncements that burden of proofs viz. identity

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]

124 (Cal) has distinguished the decision of M/s. Lovely Exports Ltd. case. It was pointed out that the said decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has been confirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2017) 77 taxmann.com 284. 4. The ld. DR also submitted that besides it has been held in various judicial pronouncements that burden of proofs

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.

Section 124(3) of the Act, within one month of receipt of this notice. Act, within one month of receipt of this notice. He pointed out that the assessee is inted out that the assessee is entitled to question the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer within a period of one entitled to question the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer

M/S SILVERTOSS REALTORS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-9(4), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

124 Shreya Commodities Pvt. 4 2,35,000 1,33,66,018 Ltd. Ria Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. [Old 5 name- Shreya Traders (P) 2,00,000 99,02,109 Ltd.] Suswani Commercials Pvt. 6 4,68,300 18,686 Ltd. 7 U.J. Exports Pvt. Ltd. 1,02,000 68,93,535 8 Mehek Merchants

ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONEROF INCOMETAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2),KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA vs. M/S. ANUBANDH FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

68 of the Act. 13. Hence, on the reasons as mentioned in the appeal order of the Ld. CIT(A), when examined in the light of the recent judicial pronouncements on the issue, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) does not appear to be justified as despite noting that the AO has recorded that vide letter dated

D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. WISE INVESTMENT PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 163/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 D.C.I.T. Central Circle – 1(4), Kolkata M/S. Wise Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs 3Rd Floor 5, Govind Chand Dhar Lane Kolkata - 700001 [Pan: Aaacw3141R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/11/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeals -21, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 26/12/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit (A) Is Justified In Deleting Addition Made U/S. 68 Of Rs.32,50,00,000/- Ignoring The Remand Report Dated 20.07.2022 Wherein The Report Categorically Stated That The Share Applicant Company Has No Creditworthiness To Invest In The Assesses Company. 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit (A) Was Erroneous As It Had Not Taken Cognizance Of The Fact That The 2

124 TTJ 25  Aquatech International Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO in ITA No. 4650/Del/2007; Assessment Year 1997-98; dated 29.08.2008 7 I.T.A. No. 163/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Wise Investment Pvt. Ltd. 8. We have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. Revenue is aggrieved with the finding of the ld. CIT(A) for deleting the addition

SHANKAR TRADERS & DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 199/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shankar Traders & Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Distributors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Aaykar Bhawan, A-Block, 1St Floor, Mercantile P-7, Chowringhee Square, Building, 9, Lal Bazar Street, Kolkata-700, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, [Pan: Aadcs8907L] West Bengal अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent)

Section 68 of the Act.” 11. 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, the Assessing Officer

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TUSCON ENGINEERS (P) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2011-12

68 is simply out of context here. The likely reason for the mix-up is because of the common word 'Credit'. The distinction is that Cash Credit concerns 'Cash' - being category of Real Asset accounts and therefore the accounting principle is that in the books of accounts when Cash comes in, it is Credited. Whereas 'Sundry Creditors for Expense' relate

BIMAL CHANDRA HAZRA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-52(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.834/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2006-07) Shri Bimal Chandra Hazra Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - C/O P.K.Mathur, Advocate, 1 52(2) Aayakar Bhavan, Meredith Street, Kolkata- Dakshin, 2 Gariahat Road, 700072 Kolkata-700072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abcph 5382F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : S.M. Surana, Advocate "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Banibra Dutta, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 19/10/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 05/12/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2006-2007, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxxiii, Kolkata In Appeal No.123/Cit(A)-Xxxiii/Ito Ward/52(2)/Kol/09-10, Dated 16.01.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act (In Short The ‘Act’), Dated 30.12.2008. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Made Cash Deposit Of Rs. 35,50,000/- In His Bank Account With The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited, Ultandanga Branch, Kolkata On Various Dates During The Financial Year 2005-06. The Authorised Representative (Ar) Of The Assessee Appeared Before The Assessing Officer & Submitted His Explanation Through Letter Dated 27- 12-2008 Stating That The Following Amounts Were Deposited In Cash In His

section 68 of the Income Tax Act would not be attracted to the present case. The above view receives support from Laxmi Narain Gupta V.CIT [1980] 124

ITO, WARD - 6(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. CARELINK VYAPAAR PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1752/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

124(cal), relates to section 263 of the Act. That is, in this judgment, the issue was that whether ld CIT was right in exercising the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act or not. In this case, the ld CIT had directed the assessing officer to examine the genuineness, creditworthiness and identity of the share subscribers

MUNDHRA CONSTRUCTION P LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-10(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad, Accountant Member Shri Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member)

124(3)(a) when the section was not applicable since the TRO was never vested with the jurisdiction. 3 For that the Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of share capital and premium issued to 9 share applicants on the ground that the assessee denied to produce their documents when the assessee never denied and the documents

M/S EVERSAFE SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-5(3), KOLKATA

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

68 of the Act. The assessee carried the matter in appeal. The first appellate authority passed an ex-parte order and confirmed the order of the AO. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 2 I.T.A. No. 604/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Eversafe Securities Pvt. Ltd. 4. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that

BLOOMING TRADELINK (P) LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 10(1) , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

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

Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Cash credits – Assessment year 1976- 77 – Partners of assessee-firm were members of one ‘J’ group running several businesses and industries – Accounts of assessee-firm showed that it had borrowed certain amount from GB, a proprietary concern of one of its partners JM, which was invested in purchase of shares

M/S J R ROADLINES PVT. LTD.,GUJRAT vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.2534/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S J R Roadlines Pvt. Ltd..............................................…………………Appellant Plot No.14, Sector 8, Gandhidham, Kutch, Gujarat-370201. [Pan: Aadcp9373R] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata………...........……………….....………..…..Respondent Present: For The Assessee: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar For The Department: Shri Praveen Kishore, Cit-Dr, On 06.01.2022 Shri Sudipta Guha, Cit-Dr, On 26.05.2022 Date Of Hearing : January 06, 2022 & May 26, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 27, 2022 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 01.10.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Kolkata [Hereinafter As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when no enquiry was conducted by the Ld. Assessing Officer. 4. That the appellant craves to leave, add or amend any of the grounds during the course of hearing.” Apart from the above grounds of appeal, the assessee has taken the following additional/legal grounds of appeal: I.T.A. No.2534/Kol/2019 Assessment Year

ROHIT JALAN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 2205/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 68 of the Act requires the assessee to explain the nature and source of such credit. On the issue of burden of proof, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, in the case of CIT vs. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. (1994) 208 ITR 465 (Cal) laid down that the assessee is required to establish: a) Identity of payer

M/S. RBS CREDIT & FINANCIAL DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 3, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1156/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Rbs Credit & Financial Development Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Pcit-3, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 3300 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 68 of the Act and had passed the assessment order without making enquiries or verification and not in accordance with the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Rajmandir Estates Pvt Ltd vs PCIT reported in (2016) 70 taxmann.com 124