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

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)

14 M/s Splendour Villa Makers Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr. 2012-13 special knowledge under section 106 of the Evidence Act may very well remain confined only to the transactions, which he had' with the creditor and he may not know what transaction(s) had taken place between his creditor and the sub- creditor… " ********** "In other words, though under section

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)

section 68 of the Act, namely: identity, creditworthiness and genuineness andhence, there should not be any addition in the hand of the assessee and ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer, therefore, order of the ld. CIT(A) should be upheld. 14

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.

Section 68 as unexplained credits and it should not be taxed in the hands of the appellant company. As indicated earlier, the Tribunal below dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and after going through the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Cl. T. vs. M/s. Lovely Exports

M/S SHREENATH HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,HOWRAH vs. I.T.O.,WARD-5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble] I.T.A. No. 2390/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Shreenath Holding Pvt. Ltd…………...……………....……..…………..………………....……Appellant 33/34, Ramlal Mukherjee Lane 2Nd Floor Room No. 2D Howrah - 711106 [Pan: Aadcs 5887 P] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Kolkata…………………………..............….....….…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit, Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 24Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 26Th, 2020 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 2, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld.Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 17/10/2019, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Is A Company & Is Engaged In The Business Of Trading & Distribution Of Goods. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 16/08/2012 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.15,500/-. During The Year, The Assessee Raised Share Capital Including Premium Amounting To Rs.1,13,55,000/-. The Assessing Officer Conducted Enquiries & The Assessee Presented The Share Holders Including The Directors Of The Share Holding Companies Before The Assessing Officer. After Due Enquiry, The Assessing Officer Accepted The Explanations Of The Assessee That The Cash Credits In The Form Of Share Capital Were Genuine, Except In The Case Of M/S. Seacom Merchants, Which Had Applied For Shares. An Amount Of Rs. 20,00,000/- Pertaining To M/S. Seacom Merchants, Was Added.

14 onwards and not for the subject Assessment Year. In fact, before the Tribunal, it was not even the case of the Revenue that Year. In fact, before the Tribunal, it was not even the case of the Revenue that Year. In fact, before the Tribunal, it was not even the case of the Revenue that Section 68

ITO, WD-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TRITIUM COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Kolkata.………......……….........…………..………….…................Appellant Vs. M/S. Tritium Commodities………..........….……...........…………..……………….…...……..…….......Respondent 7, Babulal Lane Kolkata – 700 007 [Pan : Aacct 8286 G] Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sankar Halder, Addl. Cit Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 6Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 28Th , 2018 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)-2, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 15/10/2015, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Assessee Is A Company & Is In The Business Of Investment In Shares & Securities. For The Assessment Year 2012-13, It Filed Its Return Of Income On 27/09/2017, Disclosing Nil Income. It Filed Its Original Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2008-09, On 22/10/2008, Declaring Total Loss Or Rs.14,726/-. The Assessment Order Was Passed U/S 147/143(3) Of The Act, On 24/06/2010. Thereafter The Ld. Cit(A), Passed An Order U/S 263 Of The Act, Setting Aside The Assessment Order Dt. 24/06/2010. The Assessing Officer Passed The Impugned Fresh Order In Pursuance To The Order U/S 263 Of The Act, Dt. 31/03/2014, Making An Addition Of The Share Application Money Of Rs.2.07 Crores U/S 68 Of The Act. Aggrieved The Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal. The Ld. First Appellate Authority Deleted The Addition For The Reasons Given In His Order.

Section 68 as unexplained credits and it should not be taxed in the hands of the appellant company. As indicated earlier, the Tribunal below dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and after going through the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Cl. T. vs. M/s. Lovely Exports

M/S. MATARANI VINTRADE PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 15(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M. Jagtap, V.P (Kz) & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 56(vii)(b) and contended that for the AY under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13 the law in force was AY 2012-13 that if an amount is credited/shown in the books of account and when the AO asked the assessee for explanation of the credit as to its nature and source of it, then the assessee

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]

14. Coming to the merits of the case, the facts brought to our notice are that the assessee had filed return of income on 07.07.2009. Later the same was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the assessee’s case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act and after issuing notice

DCIT, CIR.-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S JAGANNATH BANWARILAL TEXOFABS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

14. Further, in the case of CIT v. Orchid Industries (P.) Ltd. [2017] 88 taxmann.com 502/397 ITR 136, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court on the issue of non-appearance of share applicants had held as under: 9 I.T.A No 1762/Kol/2016 M/s. Jagannath Banwarilal Texofabs Pvt.Ltd. "[5] The Assessing Officer added Rs.95 lakhs as income under Section 68

BHUTORIA ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 7(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A. No. 2024/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

14,80,500 6. The Ld. AR drew our attention to the aforesaid chart and pointed out that though the aforesaid share applicants are eight in numbers actually there is only seven share subscribers because the Escorts Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. has been cited twice at serial no. (1) and (7) respectively, which fact reveals that there are only seven share

KANCHAN PLYWOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., ,JALPAIGURI vs. ITO, WARD - 1(2), JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

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

14. In the case of Nemi Chand Kothari 136 Taxman 213, (supra), the Hon'ble Guahati High Court has thrown light on another aspect touching the issue of onus on assessee under section 68

I.T.O.,WARD-9(3), KOLKATA vs. M/S REWARD HIRISE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

14. Taking note of the aforesaid documents we are of the opinion that assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share subscribers and the addition made u/s. 68 of the Act was not warranted. To come to this conclusion, let us look at section

I.T.O.,WARD-9(3), KOLKATA vs. M/S REWARD HIRISE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

14. Taking note of the aforesaid documents we are of the opinion that assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share subscribers and the addition made u/s. 68 of the Act was not warranted. To come to this conclusion, let us look at section

TRADELINK CARRYING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-4(1), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkery, Am ]

14. Taking note of the aforesaid documents we are of the opinion that assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share subscribers and the addition made u/s. 68 of the Act was not warranted. To come to this conclusion, let us look at section

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

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

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 the Ld. CIT(A) who was pleased to delete the same. Aggrieved, the Revenue is before us. 6. Assailing the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in giving relief to the assessee company

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]

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 the Ld. CIT(A) who was pleased to delete the same. Aggrieved, the Revenue is before us. 6. Assailing the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in giving relief to the assessee company

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

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

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 the Ld. CIT(A) who was pleased to delete the same. Aggrieved, the Revenue is before us. 6. Assailing the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in giving relief to the assessee company

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

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

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 the Ld. CIT(A) who was pleased to delete the same. Aggrieved, the Revenue is before us. 6. Assailing the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in giving relief to the assessee company