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.

68 of the Act. 5. The ld. D/R, on the other hand, opposed the con The ld. D/R, on the other hand, opposed the contentions of the assessee and tentions of the assessee and submitted that notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued by ITO Ward submitted that notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued

M/S. WEEDO VENTURES PVT. LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S. EQUAL PROJECTS PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. I.T. O., WARD, 9(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Weedo Ventures Pvt. Ltd......……………………..................................……………..…….............Appellant [Earlier Known As M/S. Equal Projects Pvt. Ltd.] Property No. 11 Block-A, Maharana Pratap Enclave Pitampura Delhi - 110034 [Pan : Aacce 4580 C]

section 14A read with rule 8D interalia interalia making an addition of Rs.1,46,785/-. 2.1. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. First Appellate Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. First Appellate Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. First Appellate Authority

M/S. WEEDO VENTURES PVT. LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S. EQUAL PROJECTS PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. CIT(A)-3, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Weedo Ventures Pvt. Ltd......……………………..................................……………..…….............Appellant [Earlier Known As M/S. Equal Projects Pvt. Ltd.] Property No. 11 Block-A, Maharana Pratap Enclave Pitampura Delhi - 110034 [Pan : Aacce 4580 C]

section 14A read with rule 8D interalia interalia making an addition of Rs.1,46,785/-. 2.1. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. First Appellate Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. First Appellate Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. First Appellate Authority

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

2) of the Act, which is found mentioned at page 17 PB-1 and pursuant to the same, the assessee by letter had filed the relevant documents to substantiate the queries raised by the AO, which is AY 2012-13 placed at pages 17 to 55 of the P.B-I. The Ld. AR of the assessee drew our attention to section

COSMAT TRADERS (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 of the Act on the basis of arbitrary and perverse conclusions drawn by him on the facts of the cases relying on several arbitrary and perverse conclusions drawn by him on the facts of the cases relying on several arbitrary and perverse conclusions drawn by him on the facts of the cases relying on several judgments

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 and thereafter make addition, if any, as per law. Accordingly the order of the Ld. CIT(A) stands set aside back on this limited aspect to the AO with the specific directions as set out in the foregoing. The AO shall limit himself to the inquiry as directed herein above. Needless to say, the AO shall allow

VIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL (HUF),KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD 28(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

2) and u/s 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee has traded in scrip of M/s GCM Securities Ltd. which is a penny stock and claimed exemption of Rs. 81,71, 289/- towards long term capital gain. As there is no response to the notices issued

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

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)

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2012–13. 2. At the outset, the ld. AR challenges the very impugned order by taking legal ground that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have erred that ITO/Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction over the assessee to take up the assessment proceedings

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

Section 68 of the Act. Therefore, we do not want to interfere in the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) which is confirmed and consequently the appeal of Revenue is dismissed. 7.12. We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Earthmetal Electricals P Ltd vs CIT & Anr. reported

RAMESHWAR FINVEST PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Central Circle 3(3) Rameshwar Finvest Private Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, Limited Santil Palli, 110, Eastern 111, Park Street, Kolkata- Metropolitan Bypass, Opposite Vs. 700016, West Bengal Ruby, Kasba, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcr1053N Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan & Ms. Puja Somani, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.12.2025

68 of the Act with retrospective effect nor does the proviso so introduced states that it was introduced "for removal of doubts" or that it is "declaratory". Therefore, it is not open to give it retrospective effect."” 3.19. We have also perused the provisions of Section 142(2

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

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

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]

section 142(1) notice through e-mail and also issued summons u/s. 131 of the Act to the directors of the investor companies as well as the director of the assessee company. Thereafter, he noted that there was no compliance to the notices to the assessee and thereafter on 25.03.2015 passed the reassessment u/s. 144/263 of the Act making

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 namely: identity, creditworthiness and genuineness. Therefore, Assessing Officer was right in making the disallowance u/s 68 of the Act. Apart from this, the assessee has introduced his unaccounted money by way of issuing shares at a higher premium. The assessee company does not have much track record and goodwill therefore it is not able to fetch

GAURAV VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

68,000/- as Short term Capital Gains by invoking the provisions of section 50D of the Act and assessed the total income of the assessee at ₹15,11,71,870/- u/s 143(3) of the Act. 3.1 Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who perused the assessment order, considered

FIZAAN COMMOTRADE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-15(1), KOLKATA

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

142(1) of the Act were issued and pursuant to the same Shri S. S. Lohia, FCA, the Ld. AR of the assessee appeared and furnished few details. The AO noted that assessee in this year has infused fresh share capital and share premium (Total Rs.2.10 cr.), so, he requested the Ld. AR to produce the director of the assessee

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

2. Lupin Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. Diamond Prestige, Room AAACL5921E 67,30,000 NO,310, 41A, AJC Bose Road, Kolkata-7000 17 3. Nagina Exports & Finvest Diamond Prestige, Room AAACN9722B 41,40,000 Pvt. Ltd. NO,310, 41A, AJC Bose Road, Kolkata-700017 4. Palak Projects Pvt. Ltd. Diamond Prestige, Room AAECP8098E 31,50,000 NO,310, 41A, AJC Bose Road

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

68 stood complied with. In the instant case, the Assessing Officer merely issued notices under section 133(6) to some of the shareholders whose replies, indicating that they overtly purchased the shares at Rs.200 each, were kept on record. Putting a lid at the matter at that stage only, the Assessing Officer did not consider it prudent to examine