M/S SHRISTI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-11(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal]

68,95,685/- was claimed. Assessment proceedings were completed wherein ld.A.O made disallowance of Rs. 4,22,409/- u/s 36(1)(va) in respect of employees’ contribution to provident fund and ESI which was deposited to the Govt. Account beyond the prescribed due date. Further, disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) was made of Rs. 1

ACIT, LTU - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. UCO BANK, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. M/S Uco Bank Acit, Ltu-2, Kolkata 10, Btm, Sarani, Kolkata – 700001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu3561B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

68,90,790/-. The expenditure incurred on exempted income from "Investment on Securities" and "Tax Free Bonds are debited in the taxable business income which is liable to be debited in the taxable business income which is liable to be disallowed as per section 14A of Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA vs. EDMOND FINVEST PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

161 (SC), we note that Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 8.2 of the said decision has made the following observations: “8.2 As per settled law, the initial onus is on the Assessee to establish by cogent evidence the genuineness of the transaction, and credit- worthiness of the investors under Section 68 of the Act. The assessee is expected

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

1. Abhimanyu Viiicom 68 Lacs 7,01,01,031/- Copy of Auditor's Report (68) Private Limited (Page no. 72 Audited Balance Sheet (72), Bank AAICA7299J of the paper book) statement. (80), Incorporation certificate (82), Income Tax Return Acknowledgement (83), Master data as appearing on MCA (84), details of Page 9 of 36 I.T.A. No.: 1158/KOL/2023 Assessment Year

SRIDHARPUR CO-OPERATIVE BANK,BARDHAMAN vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), BURDWAN

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 68 of the Act and added the total amount of SBNs received at ₹10,07,14,500/- as income from other sources. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who considered the facts of the case, the observations of the Ld. AO and the assessee’s submissions

NAVANSH VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 68, with respect to the share application monies received by an assessee. 5.3.2 As far as the issue is concerned, I must remain confined to the narrow issue of onus on the assessee to prove 'bonafides' or 'genuineness' of the alleged money received on account of penny stock transaction credited in his books of accounts, and that

M/S. BHIKSHU POLYMERS PVT. LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S. JEEVAN COMMOTRADE PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

section 68 of the Act was not exigible in the present case. Finally, reliance has been placed on the case of M/s Hirak Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kolkata, ITAT/242/2023, IA No. GA/1/2023 passed by the Hon'ble’ Calcutta High Court, dated 03.05.2024. 2.2. The Ld. Departmental Representative, on the other hand took

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

section 251 is a further addition to the power given to the CIT(A) as specified u/s 251(1). A reading of the said Explanation shows that the authority of the CIT(A) travels to any matter which may arise out of the proceedings, which is appealed against, notwithstanding the fact that such matter was not raised

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SOMANI SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

Bench: the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata.

section 68 of the Act. As of now there is considerable judicial precedent available from no less than the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, which clearly lays down that significantly more effort and documentation is required from the assessee when he receives share premium, which appears excessive, especially considering the financials and business prospects of the share premium recipient

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SOMANI SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

Bench: the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata.

section 68 of the Act. As of now there is considerable judicial precedent available from no less than the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, which clearly lays down that significantly more effort and documentation is required from the assessee when he receives share premium, which appears excessive, especially considering the financials and business prospects of the share premium recipient

M/S STARLAND VINIMAY PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

161. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records placed before us and carefully gone through the judgments referred by both the sides. The addition u/s 68 of the Act at Rs.1,71,00,000/- is under challenge before us. It was made by the A.O by alleging that the assessee failed to explain the identity, creditworthiness

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)

Section 68 of the Act by establishing the bonafides of the transactions and had presented all manner of documents to justify the transactions and the identity etc. of such subscribers. 2.2. The Ld. Departmental Representative, on the other hand stated that it was highly doubtful that a company having a meagre turnover and profitability could become so attractive

ACIT, CIR-40, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUNDARLAL MOHANLAL SARDA & OTHERS, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :007-08

161 ITR 316, the issue was decided in favour of assessee. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced below. “13. Having regard to the judicial interpretation placed upon the expression "reason to believe", and the continued use of that expression right from 1948 till date, we have to understand the meaning of the expression in exactly the same manner

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 is primary one which needs to be deliberated upon. It is not in doubt that the appellant filed considerable number of documents to establish the creditworthiness and identity of the share capital subscribers and also attempted to prove the genuineness of the transaction through supplying of bank statements/documents etc. In a case

GRAFTON MERCHANT PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)/KOLKATA

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

Section 68 of the Act. In light of this, the issue that deserves to be decided is whether it can be said that the onus was discharged by the appellant or not. At this stage, it deserves to be mentioned that barring 3 of the share applicants the remaining 39 have shown negligible amounts as PAT. It has also

ABN TOWER & TRANSMISSION PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1519/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Abn Tower & Transmission Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aajcs 4837 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,471.00 6,847.00 1,27,928.07 Commercial (P) Ltd. Rose Merry 14,96,245.40 0.00 12,00,000.00 1,08,239.00 10,824.00 3,93,660.40 Marketing (P) Ltd. Dhanya 16,66,553.70 0.00 15,00,000.00 1,10,781.00 11,078.00 2,66,256.70 commosales (P) Ltd. Paramatama

M/S. DELTA DEALERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

161 (SC), we note that Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 8.2 of the said decision has made the following observations: “8.2 As per settled law, the initial onus is on the Assessee to establish by cogent evidence the genuineness of the transaction, and credit- worthiness of the investors under Section 68

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)

161,368,79 Ltd. 9 Sakambhari Financial 2,000 20,000 980,000 1,000,000 90,663,70 Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. 10 Labhdhan Vanijya Pvt. 2,000 20,000 980,000 1,000,000 79,310,18 Ltd. 11 Hemlata Holdings Pvt. 1,000 10,000 490,000 500,000 9,330,15 Ltd. 12 Mangalkamna