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.

144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dt. 28/12/2019, is filed before us. A perusal of this order led before us. A perusal of this order demonstrates that the transaction of demonstrates that the transaction of Rs.20,00,000/- with M/s. with M/s. Shreenath Holdings Pvt. Ltd. was assessed as the Shreenath Holdings Pvt. Ltd. was assessed as the undisclosed income

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]

144 read with section 147/143(3) of the Act is wholly without jurisdiction and so bad in law. 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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. MAA ANNAPURNA TRANSPORT AGENCY LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkery, Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

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. 25. Ground no. 2 of revenue is against the action of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.12,75,987/- on account of interest payment

ITO, WARD-10(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TOPAZ ENCLAVE PVT.LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravii.T.A. No. 2271/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, Ward-10(4), Kolkata.................................………....………………...…………………….….Appellant

section 68 of the Act. I find that the A.O has not doubted the identities, and creditworthiness of same set of share subscribers from whom the appellant accepted share capital of Rs.26,800/-. In my considered view this is not permissible in law. A transaction cannot be partly accepted and partly held to be unexplained. I also agree with

ITO, WARD - 13(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GOURI NANDAN REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD.,, HOWRAH

In the result, we uphold the same and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

144 of the Act on 29.03.2014 determining the total income of the assessee for the AY 2012-13 at ₹4,91,00,000/- inter alia making an addition of ₹4 crore 90 lakhs u/s 68 of the Act being share capital and share premium received by the assessee during the year. The assessee also issued 2 I.T.A. No. 2102/Kol/2017

TRUE-MAN CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-7(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 68 of the Act to explain the nature and source, in other words, unable to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the share applicants and genuineness of the transaction. 8. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the paperbook and details has submitted that all the share applicant companies are duly registered with the Ministry

MOONLINK MARKETING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

144 of the Act, an addition of ₹ 18,29,00,000/- was made under Section 68 of the Act on account

ITO, WARD - 5(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. COOLHUT MERCHANTS (P) LTD., , KOLKATA

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

section 68 of the Act, it is not necessary that the transactions should have been carried out through cash/bank mode and, therefore, the moment there is a credit entry found in the book of the assessee maintained for the previous year on mercantile basis, the ld. Assessing Officer can ask for the explanation about the nature and source thereto

M/S. ACCESS GLOBAL LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

144(1) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the ‘Act’), dated 18-03-2015. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows:- 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the AO making addition of Rs. 24,20,60,000/- under sec. 68 whereas no money has been received during

M/S ADVENT COMMODITIES PVT. LTD.,ITO, WARD-4(3) vs. ITO, WARD-4(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

144(1) of the Act determining the total income of the assessee at ₹2,54,14,635/- inter alia, making in addition of ₹2,37,50,000/- being share premium received by the assessee company as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. The fresh share capital issued and subscribed to the extent of this value of share

ITO, WD-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SHREE SATI FINVEST PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

68 was made by the Assessing Officer in the I.T.A. No. 1192/KOL/2015 Assessment year: 2010-2011 & I.T.A. No. 1177/KOL/2015 Assessment year: 2012-2013 Page 6 of 6 best assessment completed under section 144

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 :-

144 TAXMAN 889 (CAL.) observed as under: - "Whether since assessee failed to establish genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of investors, addition made by Assessing Officer was valid - Held, yes". It is also to be mentioned in this connection that the assessee company shown the source of receipts of share capital of Rs.190,00,00,000/- (as credited in its books

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

ITO,WARD-9(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CHANAKYA STOCK BROKING SERVICES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07

section 68 would not be attracted on the purchases made on credit.” ITA No.611/Kol/2012 A.Y. 2006-07 ITO Wd-9(3) Kol v. M/s Chanakya Stock Broking Services Ltd. Page 11 In view of the above and considering the fats and in the circumstances of the cases and the emerging legal position, the addition of Rs.1

NEHA DIWAN,HINDMOTOR vs. ITO WARD - 23(1), HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

144 read with section 144B and u/s. 250 by CIT(A) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2016-17, is without jurisdiction, illegal, invalid and void-ab-initio being passed against the facts and laws applicable in the instant case and further being passed in violations of the settled Principles of Law and Natural Justice. 5. That

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

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

I.T.O.,WARD-1(4), KOLKATA vs. M/S GARIMA ADVISORY PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 68 of the Income Tax Act being unexplained cash credit. 6. Dissatisfied with the addition, the assessee carried the matter in appeal and contended that no share premium has been received by it during this year, rather it was an opening balance of earlier years. Whole 2 A.Y. 2013-2014 Garima Advisory Pvt. Ltd. break