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

68 of the Income Tax Act,1961. 3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(Appeal) , has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 27,034/ - on account of delayed payments of interest on service tax and TDS, without considering the fact that the assessee failed to produce any valid/ tenable explanation in this regard

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

201(1A), therefore, would not assume the character of business expenditure and cannot be regarded as a compensatory payment as contended by the learned counsel for the assessee. 3.2 It is most humbly and respectfully submitted that in a Judgement subsequently delivered on 13th May, 1998 by Larger Bench consisting of three Judges of Hon'ble Supreme Court

M/S SWIFT VINTRADE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. CIT, KOLKATA-1I, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10

section 68 of the I T Act where the identity of the share holder was established. v) Reliance was placed on several authorities in support of the submissions which are dealt with later in this order. It was accordingly, requested that in view of the aforementioned submissions, the proceeding u/s.263 should be dropped. I have considered the submissions

DCIT, C.C.-3(4), KOLKATA vs. M/S TANISHQUE TRADE LINK PVT. LTD, HOWRAH

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 17/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tanishque Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata Vs Bhabatarini Apartment G.T. Road, Room No. 602 Howrah - 711201 [Pan : Aacct7512R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, Fca Revenue By : Shri Biswanath Das, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/01/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 24/09/2020, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That On Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As In Facts In Allowing The Bogus Share Capital Raised In The Books Of The Assessee Without Appreciating The Fact That The Assessee Failed To Discharge Its Primary Onus To Prove & Establish The Identity & Creditworthiness Of The Investor Companies & Genuineness Of The Transaction. 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As In Facts In Ignoring That The Identity & Creditworthiness Of The Shareholders & Even The Genuineness Of The Transactions Remained Unexplained. 3. That On Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Invoking His Powers U/S. 250(4) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 In Directing The Assessing Officer To Make Further Enquiry & Report The Results Of The

section 68.  Commissioner of Income-tax, Agra v. Surendra Chand Bansal* [2014] 42 taxmann.com 201 (Allahabad) Where Assessing Officer

M/S. BARDHAMAN DHARMARAJ PAPER MILL PVT. LTD.,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BURDWAN

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year : 2015-16

section 68 read of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is confirmed. 5 Ground of appeal No. 6: Ground of Appeal no 6 pertains to contention of the appellant regarding that the setting off of the addition from the assessed Business Loss, should be made and after that the remaining assessed business loss is required to be carried forward

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BURDWAN, BURDWAN vs. M/S. BARDHAMAN DHARMARAJ PAPER MILL PVT. LTD., BURDWAN

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year : 2015-16

section 68 read of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is confirmed. 5 Ground of appeal No. 6: Ground of Appeal no 6 pertains to contention of the appellant regarding that the setting off of the addition from the assessed Business Loss, should be made and after that the remaining assessed business loss is required to be carried forward

JASHOJIT MUKHERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 403/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Jashojit Mukherjee -Vs- Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata [Pan: Afapm 7208 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 are satisfied. 12. As far as applicability of section 41(1) of the Act is concerned, the question before us is limited to the applicability of Section 41(1) of the Act. The section insofar as it is relevant for our purpose is as below: "Profits chargeable to tax. 41. (1) Where an allowance or deduction

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)

201 and 232 of the paper book. When the assessments of the share applicant companies are completed u/s 143(3) of the Act, the identity of the shareholder companies cannot be doubted. When the share applicant companies who have invested in the share capital of the assessee company, and when their respective assessments are completed

M/S SILVERTOSS REALTORS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-9(4), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 68 of the Act and assessed the income at Rs. 3,03,91,630/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A) but failed to succeed. The assessee filed complete details of documents of each share holder company including the copy of PAN, audited financial statement, bank statement and other details to prove the three ingredients

M/S OMKAR INFRACON PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-12(2), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. (Shri) Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

201 & 231 & 362 pages, we note the following relevant facts which would reveal that this company is engaged in genuine business of manufacturing. (a) We note that the Assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and production of Fly Ash Brick and had Started setting up the factory and expansion of it is going on, which is revealed

JAGDAMBA COMMOTRADE LLP (EARSTWHILE JAGDAMBA COMMOTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 32(1)(ERSTWHILE ITO - 5(4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, A/O is directed to decide the issue of disallowance u/s14A after hearing and verifying the same as above

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 68 does not apply in the relevant assessment year. Details of share allottee: The shareholders of the assessee company who were allotted shares during the AY 2012-13 are as follows: Sl Name of PAN No. of Paid up Premium Total No. shareholders shares capital 1. Deepa Holding AAACD

N C SHAW AND CO BEVERAGES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RANGE-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 28 of the Act for the purpose of deduction of tax @10% u/s 194H of the Act and , accordingly, it was treated as an assessee in default u/s 201(1) of the Act and interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act was also levied. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before

N C SHAW AND CO BEVERAGES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS CIRCLE 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 28 of the Act for the purpose of deduction of tax @10% u/s 194H of the Act and , accordingly, it was treated as an assessee in default u/s 201(1) of the Act and interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act was also levied. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before

ITO (TDS), WARD-58(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MEDIA WORLDWIDE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 201(1A) of the Act. Accordingly, total demand of Rs.1,68,08,795/- was raised by the Assessing

NAVIN KUMAR KAJARIA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 35, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

201 & 502/Ahd/2016 (Ahmedabad ITAT) (x) Atul Kumar Khandelwal vs. DCIT – ITA No. 874/Del/2016 (Delhi ITAT) (xi) Farah Marker vs. ITO – ITA No. 3801/Mum/2011 (Mumbai ITAT) 13. The ld AR also submitted that the AO was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 68

SMT. SUSHILA DEVI KAJARIA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 36, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

201 & 502/Ahd/2016 (Ahmedabad ITAT) (x) Atul Kumar Khandelwal vs. DCIT – ITA No. 874/Del/2016 (Delhi ITAT) (xi) Farah Marker vs. ITO – ITA No. 3801/Mum/2011 (Mumbai ITAT) 13. The ld AR also submitted that the AO was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 68

DCIT, CC-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. P & P HIGHRISE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

section 68 is not sustainable. The assessee has drew the attention of the ld. CIT(Appeals) towards the material submitted by it. A paper book running into 202 pages containing the material filed before the authorities below has been filed before us. For making reference about the nature of material, we would deem it appropriate to take note

PBN CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,SILIGURI vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 3(1),, SILIGURI

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

68 of the Act Rs. 89,55,000/- v) Unexplained money receipt from M/s Darjeeling Cement Pvt. Ltd. Siliguri Rs. 69,95,500/- vi) Addition of share application money with high premium Rs. 78,00,000/- vii) Interest on penalty Rs. 13,711/- viii) ROC Fee Rs. 17,650/- ix) Expenses not properly vouched Rs. 58,71,442/- Total