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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

68 of the Act. In the ld. CIT(A)’s order we find that the details of share allotment, the moneys received in the form of share application money/premium and ld. CIT(A) has mentioned by preparing chart in this context as under: “SDR MEGHNATH INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. DETAILS OF SHARE ALLOTMENT DURING F.Y. 2011-12 FACE VALUE OF SHARES

INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S STANDARD LEATHER PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2010-11

130/- cannot be added to the income of the appellant either by applying the provisions of section 41(1) or 68

ITO, WD-5(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BLESSING COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result we set aside the order of the Ld

Bench: Hon‟Ble Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 271/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 I.T.O., Ward-5(3), Kolkata -Vs.- M/S. Blessings Commercial Pvt. Ltd. 228A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aaccb 1349 N] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Goulen Hangshing, Cit, Dr. For The Respondent : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2017 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Vi, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Dt. 19/11/2013, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The „Act‟), Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Facts In Brief:- The Assessee Is A Company & Is Engaged In The Business Of Finance & Investment. It Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011-12 On 22/09/2010, Declaring –Nil- Income. It Showed A Loss Of Rs.668/-. The Facts As Recorded By The Assessing Officer In The Assessment Order Are Extracted Below:- “Para 1.2.1 The Assessee Has Shown Receipt Of Under Mentioned Share Capital Of Rs.1,90,00,000/- & Share Premium Of Rs.188,10,00,000/- During The Asst. Year 2010-11. The Assessee Credited Rs.1,90,00,000/- In Total In Its Books Against The Above Receipts. The Assessee Claimed That The Detail Of Receipts Are As Under :-

130 Crore from M/s. Sayaji Marketing Pvt. Ltd. But allotment was made for Rs.65 Crore and balance amount of Rs.65 Crore refunded to M/s Sayaji Marketing Pvt. Ltd. 3. The submissions of the assessee before the Assessing Officer are as follows:- a) Cheques were received as “cheques” or “endorsement of cheques”, as share applicants money, for allotment of shares from

ITO, WD-5(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SAYAJI MARKETING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result we set aside the order of the Ld

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 282/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Ito, Ward-5(2), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Sayaji Marketing Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aagcs 0147 M] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 39/Kol/2018 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No. 282/Kol/2014) Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S Sayaji Marketing Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aagcs 0147 M] (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 28.03.2013 for the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2 ITA No.282/Kol/2014 & C.O. No. 39/Kol/2018 M/s Sayaji Marketing Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr. 2010-11 2. At the outset, we find there is an inordinate delay of 1462 days in filing of cross objection by the assessee before

ELEGANT DEALMARK PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed, with Ground No

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 68 of the Act have not been discharged and thus, the action of the authorities below is confirmed and the appeal on this point is dismissed. 3. Regarding the addition of Rs. 9,647/- made u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules, it is evident that the appellant has not earned any exempt

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

section 133(6) of the Act was issued to the said parties which were duly responded by them. The identity of the parties could not be, therefore disputed, ITA Nos.1728 & 1729/KOL/2024 Dollar Holding Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 15-16 and 17-18 recorded the tribunal. The aspect was also noticed that the assessee was not beneficiary of the loan received

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER 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

section 133(6) of the Act was issued to the said parties which were duly responded by them. The identity of the parties could not be, therefore disputed, ITA Nos.1728 & 1729/KOL/2024 Dollar Holding Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 15-16 and 17-18 recorded the tribunal. The aspect was also noticed that the assessee was not beneficiary of the loan received

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND SPONGE AND IRON PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Section 68 of the Act, three ingredients were necessary. Firstly identity\nof the parties to the transaction of loan, second is the creditworthiness of such parties\nand thirdly the genuineness of the transaction. It was submitted in vain that neither of\nthe ingredients were satisfied.\n5. As discussed above, since the requisite material was furnished by assessee showing\nthe

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND SPONGE AND IRON PRIVATE LIMITED , PATNA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Section 68 of the Act, three ingredients were necessary. Firstly identity\nof the parties to the transaction of loan, second is the creditworthiness of such parties\nand thirdly the genuineness of the transaction. It was submitted in vain that neither of\nthe ingredients were satisfied.\n5. As discussed above, since the requisite material was furnished by assessee showing\nthe

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND CEMENT & ROOFINGS PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Section 68 of the Act, three ingredients were necessary. Firstly identity\nof the parties to the transaction of loan, second is the creditworthiness of such parties\nand thirdly the genuineness of the transaction. It was submitted in vain that neither of\nthe ingredients were satisfied.\n5. As discussed above, since the requisite material was furnished by assessee showing\nthe

EXOTICA ENCLAVE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 2(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

130/-. The case of the Exotica Enclave Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 2012-13 assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notice u/s 143(2) and notice u/s 142(1) of the Act were issues with questionnaire to the assessee and were duly served. During the financial year 2011- 12, the company had decided to acquire certain immovable property for which

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND CEMENT & ROOFINGS PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

Section 68 of the Act, three ingredients were necessary. Firstly identity of the parties to the transaction of loan, second is the creditworthiness of such parties and thirdly the genuineness of the transaction. It was submitted in vain that neither of the ingredients were satisfied. 5. As discussed above, since the requisite material was furnished by assessee showing

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND CEMENT & ROOFINGS PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

Section 68 of the Act, three ingredients were necessary. Firstly identity of the parties to the transaction of loan, second is the creditworthiness of such parties and thirdly the genuineness of the transaction. It was submitted in vain that neither of the ingredients were satisfied. 5. As discussed above, since the requisite material was furnished by assessee showing

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND CEMENT & ROOFINGS PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

Section 68 of the Act, three ingredients were necessary. Firstly identity of the parties to the transaction of loan, second is the creditworthiness of such parties and thirdly the genuineness of the transaction. It was submitted in vain that neither of the ingredients were satisfied. 5. As discussed above, since the requisite material was furnished by assessee showing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND SPONGE AND IRON PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

Section 68 of the Act, three ingredients were necessary. Firstly identity of the parties to the transaction of loan, second is the creditworthiness of such parties and thirdly the genuineness of the transaction. It was submitted in vain that neither of the ingredients were satisfied. 5. As discussed above, since the requisite material was furnished by assessee showing

GOPAL & SONS HUF,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 32(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

Section 68 of the Act, three ingredients were necessary. Firstly identity of the parties to the transaction of loan, second is the creditworthiness of such parties and thirdly the genuineness of the transaction. It was submitted in vain that neither of the ingredients were satisfied. 5. As discussed above, since the requisite material was furnished by assessee showing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND SPONGE AND IRON PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Section 68 of the Act, three ingredients were necessary. Firstly identity\nof the parties to the transaction of loan, second is the creditworthiness of such parties\nand thirdly the genuineness of the transaction. It was submitted in vain that neither of\nthe ingredients were satisfied.\n5. As discussed above, since the requisite material was furnished by assessee showing\nthe

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND LEASE FIN PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Section 68 of the Act, three ingredients were necessary. Firstly identity\nof the parties to the transaction of loan, second is the creditworthiness of such parties\nand thirdly the genuineness of the transaction. It was submitted in vain that neither of\nthe ingredients were satisfied.\n5. As discussed above, since the requisite material was furnished by assessee showing\nthe