J.C.I.T.(OSD),CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S WERIT GLOBAL LTD., KOLKATA

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

200/- and share premium @Rs. 590 totalling Rs.16,48,11,780/- during the relevant assessment year (herein after in shortA.Y). In order to verify the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of shareholders, the AO issued notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act to the shareholders. The AO noted that notices u/s. 133(6) in case of following six (6) shareholders

WEARIT GLOBAL LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1), KOLKATA

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

200/- and share premium @Rs. 590 totalling Rs.16,48,11,780/- during the relevant assessment year (herein after in shortA.Y). In order to verify the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of shareholders, the AO issued notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act to the shareholders. The AO noted that notices u/s. 133(6) in case of following six (6) shareholders

RAHUL AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-46, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17

68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred to as the ’Act’) . 4. Brief facts of the case as noted by the AO are that the assessee is an individual, had filed his e- return of income disclosing total income of Rs. 21,96,040/-. Later on his case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and after serving

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

200/- is treated as cash credit and added to the total income for the A.Y 2012-13.” 3. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition. 4. Aggrieved, the revenue is before us. The ld. DR submitted that there is no justification in share premium collected by assessee on allotment of shares. The ld. DR submitted that addition

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]

section 68 does not apply,; the A.O.’s action of addition u/s.68 in respect of the above six allottees cannot be sustained. 1.11 As regards the shares issued to Shyam Lal Agarwal and Varsha Agarwal being 200

ITO, WARD-14(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PANSU COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1859/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

section 68 of the Act does not apply to the assessee, as there is no cash credit during the year. 6. On the other hand, ld DR for the Revenue submitted before us written submissions, which is reproduced below: “The assessee company was incorporated on 09.09.2011. There are three shareholder. Anital Agarwal & Suresh Agarwal are the initial shareholders

LAL BABA SEAMLESS TUBES (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes, while the appeal of the Revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

68 read with section 158BBE of the Act. 9. The addition of Rs.4,39,92,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged undisclosed sale was challenged by the assessee in the appeal filed before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and after considering the submissions made by the assessee as well as the material available on record

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. LAL BABA SEAMLESS TUBES PVT. LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes, while the appeal of the Revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

68 read with section 158BBE of the Act. 9. The addition of Rs.4,39,92,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged undisclosed sale was challenged by the assessee in the appeal filed before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and after considering the submissions made by the assessee as well as the material available on record

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-49(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S VISWAKARMA RESIDENCY, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. M.L.Meenaआयकर अपील सं.य/ Assessment Years:2016-17 बनाम / Acit, Cir-49(1), Kolkata M/S. Viswakarma Residency Uttarpan Complex, Ds-Iv, V/S. 2Nd Fl., Manicktala Civick Centre, Block-2 & 3, 2Nd Fl., Kolkata-700 054. Pan: Aaifv3279Q अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent .. Hearing Through Video Conferencing अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Manish Kanojia, Cit, Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri S.M Surana, Advocate, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-08-2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26-10-2021

Section 68 of the Act and we thus find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the authorities.” 8. I further find force in the that the loan creditors had sufficient net worth to invest as show under:- Name of Capital Reserves Net Closing % of Net Company Worth balance Profit Accurate

L B SAREE EMPORIUM,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 43, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

Section 68 allows the tax authorities to treat it as taxable income…………….”. 9. Now in order to examine the nature and source of the alleged cash creditors and also to verify whether the asseessee has placed sufficient material to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the cash creditors and genuineness of the transactions, we need to examine each

ITO, WARD-10(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MS SAVERA TOWERS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 2275/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ito, Ward-10(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Savera Towers Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aaocs 9744 C ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

200/- from 4 corporate entities and Rs. 2,70,45,800/- from the very same shareholders towards share premium. The share capital received by the assessee has been duly accepted by the ld. AO within the ken of section 68

SUBHDHAN FINANCIAL ADVISORY PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-9(4), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 2198/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Subhdhan Financial Advisory Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(4) Private Limited Vs C/O Sri Jitendra Kaushik, Advocate 19D, Muktaram Babu Street Kolkata - 700007 [Pan : Aamcs7818P] अपीलाथ"/ (Assessee ) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Fca Revenue By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/07/2023 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) – 15, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 13/03/2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax(A) 15, Kolkata Is Arbitrary, Illegal & Bad In Law. 2. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) 15, Erred In Confirming The Action Of Income-Tax Officer Adding A Sum Of Rs.72,00,000/- Under Section 68 Of The I T Act 1961. 3. For That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter Or Amend Any Ground Before Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

200/- from 4 corporate entities and Rs. 2,70,45,800/- from the very same shareholders towards share premium. The share capital received by the assessee has been duly accepted by the ld. AO within the ken of section 68

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. SDR MEGHNATH INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

68 of the Act. In the ld. CIT(A)’s order we find that the details of share allotment, the moneys received in the form of share application money/premium and ld. CIT(A) has mentioned by preparing chart in this context as under: “SDR MEGHNATH INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. DETAILS OF SHARE ALLOTMENT DURING F.Y. 2011-12 FACE VALUE OF SHARES

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

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

200/- during the year and also the share premium of Rs.3,40,31,800/-. When asked by the AO to explain the nature and source of the share capital and share premium raised by the assessee, the assessee filed before the AO the details of the four corporate bodies which 5 Positive Properties Pvt. Ltd., AY 2012-13 subscribed

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)

200/- from 4 corporate entities and Rs. 2,70,45,800/- from the very same shareholders towards share premium. The share capital received by the assessee has been duly accepted by the ld. AO within the ken of section 68

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LITTLESTAR SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

200/- shares at a premium\nof ₹999/ per share thereby raising share capital/ share premium\nfrom 14 companies the details whereof is extracted by the Id. AO in\nPara no.6 of the assessment order. The assessee filed before the Id.\nAO copies of share application letters, share allotment letters, ITR\nacknowledgements of share applicants, audited accounts, bank\nstatements and source

SILKINA COMMODEAL PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-3(3), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Years: 2011-12 Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 6, Waterloo Street, Kolkata- Vs. 3(3), Kolkata. 700069. (Pan: Aaecs5627C) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 68 of the Act were not applicable. viii) Similarly, Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case cited as CIT Vs Vishal Holding and Capital Pvt. Ltd. vide order dated 9th August, 2010 upheld the order dated 30.07.2009 of the ITAT in 1. TA. No. 1788/Del/2007 for the Assessment Year 2000-2001 wherein the order

SILKINA COMMODEAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 68 of the Act were not applicable. viii) Similarly, Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case cited as CIT Vs Vishal Holding and Capital Pvt. Ltd. vide order dated 9th August, 2010 upheld the order dated 30.07.2009 of the ITAT in 1. TA. No. 1788/Del/2007 for the Assessment Year 2000-2001 wherein the order