SARDA MINES PVT. LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-05(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 867/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Sarda Mines Pvt. Ltd...............................………………………………………………Appellant 6Th Floor, Circular Court, 8, Ajc Bose Road, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan : Aahcs 2419 R] D.C.I.T., Cir 5(2) Kolkata………………………………………………......................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 69 Appearances By: Shri A.K. Gupta, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Md. Usman, Cit Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 21, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 14, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Cit – 2, Kolkata Dated 28.03.2017 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Therein Read As Under: “1. For That The Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Kolkata (In Short ‘Cit’) Dated 28.03.2017 Is Without Jurisdiction & Illegal As None Of The Condition Precedent For Exercise Of The Power Under Section 263 Of The Act Exists And/Or Has Been Satisfied & As Such The Said Order Is Erroneous & Without Jurisdiction & Liable To Be Cancelled. 2. For That The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Was Not In Any Way Erroneous Or Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & As Such The Cit Would Not Exercise Any Power Under Section 263 Of The Act. The Cit Erred In Holding That The Order Of Assessment Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue.

201(1)(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, it has been come to the notice of the ACIT (TDS)-II, Bhubaneswar that the assessee company had made certain payments on account of Rent during the F.Y. 2006-07 to various parties amounting to Rs. 11,33,85,160/- but no tax was deducted

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

3. In this Ground of Appeal the Assessee claimed deduction of interest on delayed deposit of Tax Deducted at Source. The Assessee had relied on various judgements rendered by Hon'ble Kolkata Tribunal and Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal. The Hon'ble Kolkata Tribunal had allowed such claim in the case of NarayaniIspat Alloys Ltd. and the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal

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

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

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

3), Kolkata [2011] 15 taxmann.com 298 (Calcutta) Where assessee had produced loan confirmation certificates signed by creditors, disclosing their permanent account numbers and address, loans taken by assessee could not be held to be not genuine without giving further opportunity to assessee to explain information on basis of which such conclusion was arrived at.  Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sidhi

M/S BASUNDHARA GOODS (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WD-5(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 674/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Basundhara Goods (P) Ltd.................................…………………………..........Appellant (Formerly Merged With Param Mitra Investments Ltd.)Kolkata 129, Transport Centre, Rohtak Road, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi – 110 035 [Pan : Aadcb 1931 H] Income Tax Officer Kolkata..…………………………………………………………......Respondent Ward 5(4), Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069 Appearances By: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit (Dr) Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 16, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 23, 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 6, Kolkata Dated 29.02.2016. 2. The Relevant Facts Of The Case Giving Rise To This Appeal Are That The Assessee Is A Company Which Is Engaged In The Business Of Share Dealing & Investment. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed By It On 14.08.2008 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 749/-. In The Assessment Originally Completed Under Section 147/143(3) Vide An Order Dated 30.04.2010, The Total Income Of The Assessee Was Determined By The A.O. At Rs. 17,720/-. The Said Assessment Was Subsequently Set Aside By The Ld. Cit Vide An Order

68 by treating the share capital contribution including the share premium received by the assessee during the year under consideration as unexplained cash credits. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. In Ground No. 12 of this appeal, the assessee has raised a preliminary issue challenging the validity

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

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

3. CIT vs. Nova Promoters & Finlease (D) Ltd.(342 ITR 169):- Wherein Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that amount received by assessee from accommodation entry provider in garb of share application money, was to be added to its taxable income under section 68. 4. CIT vs. Ultra Modern Exports (D) Ltd. (220 taxman 165):- Where Hon'ble Delhi

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

3. CIT vs. Nova Promoters & Finlease (D) Ltd.(342 ITR 169):- Wherein Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that amount received by assessee from accommodation entry provider in garb of share application money, was to be added to its taxable income under section 68. 4. CIT vs. Ultra Modern Exports (D) Ltd. (220 taxman 165):- Where Hon'ble Delhi

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

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

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 u/s 143(3

DALMIA LAMINATORS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 7(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

68 of the I.T. Act. iii. That the appellant craves leave to add/or amend any ground of this appeal.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the ld. AO framed the assessment order u/s 143(3) vide order dated 14.12.2019 for the A.Y. 2017-18 of the Act. The assessee in its return of income disclosing total income

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 9589 N 30650 3

ACIT, CIR-40, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUNDARLAL MOHANLAL SARDA & OTHERS, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :007-08

201(1)/201(1A) of the Act. The assessee further submitted that the submission made by Shri Chandak during the TDS proceedings cannot be relied upon as he was acting as an employee of ITA No.116/Kol/2014 & CO. 12/Kol/2014 A.Y. 2007-08 ACIT, Cir-40, Kol. Vs. Sundarlal Mohanlal Sarda & Others Page 6 SMPL. Moreover, Shri Chandak was not aware

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. NARBHERAM VISHRAM, JHARKHAND

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

201 CTR (SC) 183 : [2006J 281 ITR 305 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the maxim actus curiae neminem garvabit, i.e., an act of Court shall prejudice no man, is founded upon justice and good sense which serves a safe and certain guide for the administration of law. The other relevant maxim is lex non cogit dimpossibilia

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

68,08,795/- was raised by the Assessing Officer against the assessee vide an order dated 22.03.2013 passed under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act. 3