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]

3. Brief facts of the case as noted by the AO are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of cotton yarn and trading of synthetics yarn and cotton yarn. The A.O noted that the assessee company has raised share capital to the tune of Rs.2,79,34,200/- and share premium @Rs. 590 totalling Rs.16

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

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

3. Brief facts of the case as noted by the AO are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of cotton yarn and trading of synthetics yarn and cotton yarn. The A.O noted that the assessee company has raised share capital to the tune of Rs.2,79,34,200/- and share premium @Rs. 590 totalling Rs.16

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 in view of the fact that no cash was introduced in the books of accounts by the appellant, which took over debts or advances due to the share allottees in the hands of the official liquidator in connection with purchase of some property which seems to have been acquired or was to be acquired by the appellant

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

M/S. AASTHA VINCOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-XIX, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

200/- was disallowed in the assessment framed under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act dated 28.02.2011. 5. Subsequently ld. Principal CIT-1, Kolkata, uon perusing the assessment records in respect of assessment framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act dated 28.02.2011, observed that the said order

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)

68 of the I.T. Act, holding the view of double taxation in the hands of assessee company as well as in the hands of five paper companies in the light of decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Trinetra Commerce & Trade (P) Ltd., 75 taxmann. Com 70 (dt. of order 15.09.2016) 3. That the Department craves

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 without establishing any patent material defects lin the method of accounting or the book results of the appellant company. Accordingly, the addition made by the AO was unwarranted and is directed to delete the addition of Rs.4,39,92,200/-. This ground is allowed”. 10. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant

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 without establishing any patent material defects lin the method of accounting or the book results of the appellant company. Accordingly, the addition made by the AO was unwarranted and is directed to delete the addition of Rs.4,39,92,200/-. This ground is allowed”. 10. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant

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 of the Act. However, share premium component has been doubted by the ld. AO. We find that the assessee

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)

3 M/s Savera Towers Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr. 2012-13 raised by the assessee in the sum of Rs. 2,70,45,800/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. The ld. AO however accepted the receipt of share capital in the sum of Rs. 54,200/- from the very same shareholders as genuine in the assessment

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)

3. Murari Lal Bharatiya Rs.10,00,000/- 4. Premchand Gupta HUF Rs.10,00,000/- 5. Sharda devi Sarawgi Rs. 5,00,000/- 6. Bansal Traders Rs.11,50,000/- 7. Zori Varieties Rs.25,00,000/- 8. Ganpati Developers Pvt. Ltd. Rs.25,00,000/- 4 L B Saree Emporium Interest expenditure claimed on above stated unsecured loan has also been disallowed

M/S. INDIAN ROADWAYS CORPORATION LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CENTRAL - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. Principal Commissioner Of M/S Indian Roadways Corporation Ltd. Income Tax, Central-I, Irc House, 1, Sunyat Sen Street, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Kolkata-700012. Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci 7333 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

68,447/- and for other two balances of Rs. 1,27,033/- and Rs. 4,200/-, nature of ‘sundry balances written off’, were available before the assessing officer when he was making assessment under section 143 (3

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

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

M/S PREMIER IRRIGATION ADRITEC (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

68 of the Paper Book. – Kindlysee Para 10 onwards of the Judgement at Pages 63 to 66 of the Paper Book. Pleasesee Para 10 wherein the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court referred to the Judgement ofApex Court in the case of HarshadShantilal Mehta and held that tax does not includeInterest or penalty. 4.4 Now, I refer to the Judgement