SMT. SANGITA JAIN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 36(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

section 2(22)(e) reads as under- "Any advance or loan made to a shareholder or the said concern by a company in the ordinary course of I.T.A. No. 1817/KOL./2009 Assessment year: 2006-2007 Page 4 of 8 its business, where the lending of money is a substantial part of the business of the company". It was contended

AERO DEALCOMM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-4(3), KOLKATA

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble) Assessment Years: 2009-10 Aereo Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd………….………...........................................................……………….…......Appellant C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates 2, Garstin Place 2Nd Floor Suite No. 203 Off Hare Street Kolkata West Bengal – 700 001 [Pan : Aacca 5934 G] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Kolkata…………………..……………….............….……....…....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate & Shri M. Jhawar, Fca, 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 26Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

68, read with section , read with section 147, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Accommodation entry) (Accommodation entry) - Assessment year 2008-09 - Information was received from Information was received from 6 Assessment Years: 2009-10 Aereo Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd. investigation wing that assessee investigation wing that assessee-company was a beneficiary of accommodation

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. THE HOOGHLY MILLS CO. LTD., KOLKATA

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

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

22)( e ) can be made in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Consequently Gr.No.2 raised by the revenue is dismissed. 30. Ground no.3 raised by the Revenue reads as follows: “3. That the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance on account of expenditure relating to earlier year.” 31. Ground No. 3 is against the action

MR. MANISH MIMANI,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T.(OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-V, KOLAKTA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (5) Further, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer had erred in considering that the appellant assessee had received Rs.27,68

SHRI SAHADEB PAIK ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, KOLKATA - 17, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.768/Kol/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

e) of section 2(22) of the Act. The amount of Rs. 32,13,367 represented the provision for the interest which was to be paid by the assessee to AMPL on the old outstanding loan of Rs.1,76,39,425 and a further loan of Rs. 11,68

ASHOKA EXPORTS ,HOWRAH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 46, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 1434/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ashoka Exports........….........……………………………………....………………..…………………….….Appellant 110/1, Dharamtalla Road Howrah-711 107 [Pan : Aagfa 3477 R] Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-46, Kolkata………....................…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri V.N. Dutta, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

section 2(22)(e) is that the advance or loan must be made to the shareholder by a company in the ordinary course of its business. The first ingredient does not require that the company must be engaged in money-lending business. Moreover, where the advance or loan was made in the ordinary course of the business

MANAV KUMAR SARAF,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-37, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-

68,000/- from the said Company during the year under consideration. According to the Assessing Officer, the said transaction was falling within the purview of section 2(22)(e

ACIT, CIRCLE - 35, , KOLKATA vs. M/S. MACHINERY AGENCIES INDIA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

22,78,400/-. Thereafter the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. In the course of assessment proceedings the AO noted that the assessee firm has taken unsecured loan from the following parties which according to him were shell companies: Sl. No. Name Unsecured loans received during Interest Paid FY 2013-14 1 A.K. Construction

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

JHV CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed but the order of the Pr

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since no incriminating material was found in the course of the search and seizure operation carried out in the case of the assessee, the assessment was made u/s 153A of the Act without taking any adverse view for the unsecured loan received from M/s. Welcome Distilleries Pvt Ltd. Hence, the order

MR. MANISH MIMANI,KOLKATA vs. CIT, CENTRAL - I, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08 Mr.Manish Mimani -Versus- C.I.T., Central-I, Kolkata Kolkata (Pan:Aetpm1173K) (Appellant ) (Respondent)

2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by an amount of Rs.27,68,646/- being the debit balance of the appellant with M/s Ganesh Wheat Products Pvt. Ltd. during the period from 01.11.2006 to 05.03.2007, which was required to be added in the hands of the. appellant. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

KUNJ ALLOYS PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. A.C.I.T., CIR-2, BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

2(22)(e). The appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed. 6. The solitary issue involved in the appeal of the Revenue relates to the deletion by the ld. CIT(Appeals) of the addition of Rs.1,45,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of share application money under section 68

D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S TURNER MORRISON LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as assessee both are partly allowed as indicated above

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

E R Per Shri P.M. Jagtap, A.M.: These two appeals, one filed by the Revenue being ITA No. 297/KOL/2013 and the other filed by the assessee being ITA No. I.T.A. No 297/KOL/2013 Assessment year: 2009-2010 & I.T.A. No. 161/KOL/2013 Assessment year: 2009-2010 Page 2 of 23 161/KOL/2013, are cross appeals, which are directed against the order of ld. Commissioner

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]

2)(a), the donation must be a sum of money paid by the assessee.” 12. In view of the above decision we are of the considered view that the phrase ‘any sum’ employed in Section 68,cannot be extended to include any book entry, notional adjustment, payment in kind etc. The Ld. AR’s reliance on the findings recorded

TCG URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1649/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit, Cir-2(2), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Tcg Urban Infrastructure

section 154 of the Act, as mentioned in para 24 of our order, the following additions, other than TCG Facilities Management services Pvt. Ltd. made u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act remained: (i) Bengal Intelligent Parks Pvt. Ltd. Rs.2,41,00,000 (ii) BIP Developers Pvt. Ltd. Rs.3,20,00,000 (iii) International Biotech Park Ltd. Rs.21

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TCG URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1649/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit, Cir-2(2), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Tcg Urban Infrastructure

section 154 of the Act, as mentioned in para 24 of our order, the following additions, other than TCG Facilities Management services Pvt. Ltd. made u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act remained: (i) Bengal Intelligent Parks Pvt. Ltd. Rs.2,41,00,000 (ii) BIP Developers Pvt. Ltd. Rs.3,20,00,000 (iii) International Biotech Park Ltd. Rs.21

AMAR IRON UDYOG PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

sections": [ "68", "2(22)(e)" ], "issues": "Whether the addition on account of share capital under Section 68 and the addition

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.

e) We find that the proviso to section 68 of the Act has been introduced by the Finance Act 2012 with effect from 1st April, 2013. Thus it would be effective only Finance Act 2012 with effect from 1st April, 2013. Thus it would be effective only Finance Act 2012 with effect from 1st April, 2013. Thus it would

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

68[such book profit shall be deemed to be the total income of the assessee and the tax payable by the assessee on such total income shall be the amount of income-tax at the rate of seven and one-half per cent]. (2)------------ Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “book profit” means the net profit as shown