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 is not correct, hencethe A.O.’s action, therefore cannot be sustained. 9.We note that Jurisdictional, Hon`ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Jatia Investment Co. vs. CIT, reported in 206

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 263 of the Act and in the order u/s 263 dt. 26/03/2013, ld. Assessing Officer was directed to carry out the assessment proceedings afresh after examining the genuineness and source of share capital by conducting independent enquiry not through the assessee and also to examine the directors as well as change in the directorship and also to examine

ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S VISHNU DISTRIBUTORS PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is devoid of any merit, hence dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 50/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-2013

Section 68 of the Act. The Revenue filed an appeal against the said judgement and the same was dismissed by the HonTjle Supreme Court in ITO vs. V.R. Global Energy (P) Ltd. [2020] 113 taxmann.com 31 (SC). The decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in case of CIT vs. Ritu Anurag Agarwal

ITO, WARD - 6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. DHANKAMAL COMMOSAES PVT. LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 68 of the 1961 Act are also set aside. The questions of law are answered against the Revenue. No costs. Consequently, CMP No.9496 law are answered against the Revenue. No costs. Consequently, CMP No.9496 law are answered against the Revenue. No costs. Consequently, CMP No.9496 of 2017 is closed.” 4. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court

ITO, WARD-8(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S MERRIT FINTRADE PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

section 68 of the Act would be attracted as the amount has been credited in the books of account during the year only. The Ld. D.R therefore prayed that the order of Ld. CIT(A) needs to be reversed and that of the AO may kindly be restored. 6. The Ld. A.R submitted before the Bench that the order

M/S. ACCESS GLOBAL LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

68 to make the said addition in the appellant’s hand. Transactions purportedly executed by entry operators involve multiple layers and other complexities, introducing delays in introduction of unaccounted cash/money and multiple players being incorporated entities. Measures taken by the AO in the course of the assessment proceeding falls much short of what is required to be done in such

ITO, WD-5(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BLESSING COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result we set aside the order of the Ld

Bench: Hon‟Ble Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 271/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 I.T.O., Ward-5(3), Kolkata -Vs.- M/S. Blessings Commercial Pvt. Ltd. 228A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aaccb 1349 N] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Goulen Hangshing, Cit, Dr. For The Respondent : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2017 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Vi, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Dt. 19/11/2013, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The „Act‟), Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Facts In Brief:- The Assessee Is A Company & Is Engaged In The Business Of Finance & Investment. It Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011-12 On 22/09/2010, Declaring –Nil- Income. It Showed A Loss Of Rs.668/-. The Facts As Recorded By The Assessing Officer In The Assessment Order Are Extracted Below:- “Para 1.2.1 The Assessee Has Shown Receipt Of Under Mentioned Share Capital Of Rs.1,90,00,000/- & Share Premium Of Rs.188,10,00,000/- During The Asst. Year 2010-11. The Assessee Credited Rs.1,90,00,000/- In Total In Its Books Against The Above Receipts. The Assessee Claimed That The Detail Of Receipts Are As Under :-

206 ITR 0718  ACIT vs. Mahendra Kumar Agarwal (2011) 142 TTJ 0035 (UO)  ACIT vs. Kerala Transport Co. (1994) 50 TTj 0189 8.1. Alternatively and without prejudice to his argument that Section 68

ITO, WD-5(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SAYAJI MARKETING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result we set aside the order of the Ld

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 282/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Ito, Ward-5(2), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Sayaji Marketing Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aagcs 0147 M] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 39/Kol/2018 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No. 282/Kol/2014) Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S Sayaji Marketing Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aagcs 0147 M] (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

206 ITR 0718 • ACIT vs. Mahendra Kumar Agarwal (2011) 142 TTJ 0035 (UO) • ACIT vs. Kerala Transport Co. (1994) 50 TTj 0189 8.1. Alternatively and without prejudice to his argument that Section 68

ITO,WARD-9(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CHANAKYA STOCK BROKING SERVICES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07

section will not cover contracts for sale for goods [CIRCULAR NO.681/F.No.275/54/93-ITB (1994) 206 ITR (ST) 299]. There is no dispute that there was a contract which in the instant case amounted to contract for sale of goods and not works contract so to invite the mischief of s. 194C of the Act. In the instance case, there

ITO, WARD- 6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. DSR IMPEX PVT. LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2087/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

68 of the Act. The Section puts the assessee under a cloud, when prima facie evidence is in place, Logically, unless any amount is credited, the necessity to offer the explanation about the source of cash credit and rebuttal by the AO of the explanation of the assessee does not arise. The Section puts the assessee under

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ALISHAN STEELS PVT. LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

206 ITR 718], the ld. CIT(Appeals) held that section 68 had no application when the shares were allotted

ABN TOWER & TRANSMISSION PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1519/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Abn Tower & Transmission Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aajcs 4837 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 68 of the Act in the instant case. All the creditors had duly filed confirmations before the ld AO . Merely because the summons issued seeking their personal appearance is not complied with, the entire transactions cannot be treated as bogus and cannot be doubted by the revenue, especially when the entire onus has been proved by the assessee

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 ]

206 of the paper book. The details of other loans and advance taken by the assessee company from 11 I.T.A No. 896/Kol/2019 A.Y 2012-13 the same shareholders which are shown as loans and advance in the books of the assessee company is placed at page 207 to 231 of the paper book. 12. Thus, the AO after summoning

M/S. TEDIUM COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the revenue

Bench: the AO. Finally the AO added the amount as unexplained cash credit to the income of the assessee.

Section 68 of the Act. The court also took note of the fact that the revenue had filed appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the said decision which was dismissed in the case of ITO Vs. V. R. Global Energy (P) Ltd. (2020)113 taxmum.com 31 (SC). Apart from that two other decisions, one of the Division

ITO, WARD - 1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. JOSAN DEPOSITS & ADVANCES PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

68, Section 56, Section 80G, Section 88 and various other section which were relevant for the purpose of interpretation of the word “sum” and cash credit. Same has been reiterated and underlined by the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Amonbolu Rajaiyah in 102 ITR 423; The Allahabad High Court

ITO, WARD - 5(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BANGABHUMI BARTER PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2012-13

section 68 says:- Cash credits. 68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged

SHANKAR TRADERS & DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 199/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shankar Traders & Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Distributors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Aaykar Bhawan, A-Block, 1St Floor, Mercantile P-7, Chowringhee Square, Building, 9, Lal Bazar Street, Kolkata-700, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, [Pan: Aadcs8907L] West Bengal अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent)

Section 68 of the Act.” 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, thus, has held that once the assessee has submitted the documents relating to identity, genuineness of the transaction, and credit-worthiness of the subscribers, then the AO is duty bound conduct to conduct an independent enquiry to verify the same. However, as noted above, the Assessing Officer

BLOOMING TRADELINK (P) LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 10(1) , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

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

206 ITR 718 (CAL.) held as follows:- “Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Cash credits – Assessment year