M/S VODAFONE EAST LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

2 & 3, Provisions/Liabilities written back – others and Bad debts Recovery The Appellant is in the sole business of the providing cellular mobile phone services. There is no business of the Appellant except that of providing cellular mobile phone services. The Provisions/Liabilities made and Bad Debts were allowed as deduction from the business income in previous assessment years. The said provisions/Liabilities

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA vs. HUTCHISON TELECOM EAST LIMITED, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

2 & 3, Provisions/Liabilities written back – others and Bad debts Recovery The Appellant is in the sole business of the providing cellular mobile phone services. There is no business of the Appellant except that of providing cellular mobile phone services. The Provisions/Liabilities made and Bad Debts were allowed as deduction from the business income in previous assessment years. The said provisions/Liabilities

DCIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

2 & 3, Provisions/Liabilities written back – others and Bad debts Recovery The Appellant is in the sole business of the providing cellular mobile phone services. There is no business of the Appellant except that of providing cellular mobile phone services. The Provisions/Liabilities made and Bad Debts were allowed as deduction from the business income in previous assessment years. The said provisions/Liabilities

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD., KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

2 & 3, Provisions/Liabilities written back – others and Bad debts Recovery The Appellant is in the sole business of the providing cellular mobile phone services. There is no business of the Appellant except that of providing cellular mobile phone services. The Provisions/Liabilities made and Bad Debts were allowed as deduction from the business income in previous assessment years. The said provisions/Liabilities

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

2 & 3, Provisions/Liabilities written back – others and Bad debts Recovery The Appellant is in the sole business of the providing cellular mobile phone services. There is no business of the Appellant except that of providing cellular mobile phone services. The Provisions/Liabilities made and Bad Debts were allowed as deduction from the business income in previous assessment years. The said provisions/Liabilities

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

2 & 3, Provisions/Liabilities written back – others and Bad debts Recovery The Appellant is in the sole business of the providing cellular mobile phone services. There is no business of the Appellant except that of providing cellular mobile phone services. The Provisions/Liabilities made and Bad Debts were allowed as deduction from the business income in previous assessment years. The said provisions/Liabilities

KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T RANGE - 50,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 723 & 724/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority -Vs- C.I.T.-Xvii, Kolkata [Pan: Aaalk 0714 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 523 & 524/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority -Vs- J.C.I.T., Kolkata [Pan: Aaalk 0714 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel Of Assessee For The Respondent : Shri Anand R. Baiwar, Cit Date Of Hearing : 09.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2017

section 12A(2) of the Act cannot be held to be retrospective in nature and hence cannot be applied for the Asst Years 2006-07 and 2007-08. The ld AR argued that the issue under dispute is already settled by the following decisions of the co-ordinate benches of various tribunals :- A.Yrs.2006-07 & 2007-08 a) Decision

KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T RANGE - 50,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 723 & 724/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority -Vs- C.I.T.-Xvii, Kolkata [Pan: Aaalk 0714 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 523 & 524/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority -Vs- J.C.I.T., Kolkata [Pan: Aaalk 0714 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel Of Assessee For The Respondent : Shri Anand R. Baiwar, Cit Date Of Hearing : 09.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2017

section 12A(2) of the Act cannot be held to be retrospective in nature and hence cannot be applied for the Asst Years 2006-07 and 2007-08. The ld AR argued that the issue under dispute is already settled by the following decisions of the co-ordinate benches of various tribunals :- A.Yrs.2006-07 & 2007-08 a) Decision

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. GOLDEN GOENKA CREDIT PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

2) and 142(1) of the Act and I find that nowhere in the said notices the AO has sought details in respect of the source of repayment of loan though details were sought about the repayment of loan. It is a matter of record that an Assessment Order dated 22/03/2024 was initially passed, in the case of the Assessee

ITO, WD-2(1), SILIGURI, DARJEELING vs. M/S MEGASUN MERCHANTS PVT. LTD., SILIGURI

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1038/Kol/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

2. MahamaniVinimoy (P) Ltd. Rs. 15,00,000/- (for 3,000 shares). 3. Natural Suppliers (P) Ltd. Rs. 19,00,000/- (for 3,800 shares). 4.Shivaangan Merchandise (P) Ltd. Rs. 24,00,000/- (for 4,800 shares). 5. Pragya Commodities (P) Ltd. Rs. 9,00,000/- (for 1,800 shares). 6. Dew Drops Mercantile

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. ALEMBIC MERCHANTS PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue fails

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Central Cir-1(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Alembic Merchants Pvt. Ltd Pan: Aacca 0918Q Appellant Respondent

68 of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) by raising the grounds of appeal ( Ground no. 1 & 2 ) inter alia raising the legal issue of jurisdiction of AO. Ground nos. 1 & 2 raised before the Ld. CIT(A) read as under:- 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

ITO, WARD-8(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S MANINYA COMFIN PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 79/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(1), M/S. Maninya Comfin Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Vs 9, Lal Bazar Street Lal Bazar Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcm5088N] अपीलाथ"/ (Assessee ) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vinod Kr. Jain, A/R Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/07/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/08/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 26/09/2018 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Made U/S. 68 Of Rs. 7,96,16,343/- On Account Of Unexplained Cash Credit In The Form Of Share Capital With Premium. 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Kol., Is Erred In Deleting The Addition Without Considering The Facts That The Source Of Fresh Share Capital Amount Was Not Properly Explained By The Assessee During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings & The Director Of The Assessee Company Did Not Appear Against Summon U/S. 131 To Substantiate The Claim Of The Assessee With Documentary Evidences. 3. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A), Failed To Appreciate That When The Sums Are Credited In The Books Of Accounts

2,95,00,000/-). The only other company present in the list of unsecured loan is Murray Financial Pvt. Ltd. having closing balance of Rs.3,44,164/- but the same is brought forward balance from preceding year, therefore, for the purpose of adjudicating the issue of unexplained unsecured loans u/s 68 of the Act, the only party to be examined

NINESTAR MERCHANTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

2 of the AO’s order. Copies of the same are fled before us by way of a paper book. The identity of the investor companies stand proved. 6.2. The creditworthiness of these share applicant companies is evident from the following table: Name of the Shareholder Investible Funds Amount Invested in the Percentage(%) of available as per appellant company

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GRAPHITE INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, considering the discussions made above, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

68,082/-, which represented adjustment of lease premium of Rs. 81,650/-, rent of Rs. 3,26,600/- and excess usance charge of Rs. 59,832/- paid by the assessee to MIADB during the lease period. The ld. AO noticed that the appellant had computed LTCG on sale of part of the land by taking cost of acquisition

M/S. BMS SALES PVT. LTD., ,PURULIA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

164 taxmann.com 324 (Amritsar)]\ne) Koteshwar Rao v. DCIT [(2015) 64 taxmann.com 159 (Viz)]\n2.5. Ld. CIT-DR, on the other hand, relied heavily on the orders of\nthe authorities below and submitted that the case was validly\nreopened by the Id. AO by issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act under the\nnew scheme of taxation which mandatorily required

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

164-165 of the Paper Book-paragraphs 18 at 22-23) by following its order for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10. 12.3. The Department preferred appeals before the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court against the orders of this Hon’ble Tribunal for the assessment years 2007-08 [ITAT 80/2015 and GA 1714/2015 – Page 47 at 52 – Question

BIRLA CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

164-165 of the Paper Book-paragraphs 18 at 22-23) by following its order for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10. 12.3. The Department preferred appeals before the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court against the orders of this Hon’ble Tribunal for the assessment years 2007-08 [ITAT 80/2015 and GA 1714/2015 – Page 47 at 52 – Question

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

164-165 of the Paper Book-paragraphs 18 at 22-23) by following its order for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10. 12.3. The Department preferred appeals before the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court against the orders of this Hon’ble Tribunal for the assessment years 2007-08 [ITAT 80/2015 and GA 1714/2015 – Page 47 at 52 – Question