ITO, WARD - 6(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. DELIGHT GRIH NIRMAN PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1755/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

5,00,00,000/- From the paper book submitted by the ld counsel, where we note that the aforesaid shareholders had submitted the following relevant details as called for and had confirmed the transaction with the assessee company. The evidence which were filed before the AO, included the following details. a) Copy of Form - l8 filed with ROC as address

ITO, WARD-12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SPLENDOUR VILLA MAKERS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1768/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ito, Ward-12(3), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Splendour Villa Makers Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aahcs 9726 M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 68 of the Act, the duty cast on the assessee is to explain the nature and source of credit found in his books. In the instant case, the credit is in the form of receipt of share application money from five share applicants. The nature of receipt towards share application money is well established from the entries passed

M/S SHREENATH HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,HOWRAH vs. I.T.O.,WARD-5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble] I.T.A. No. 2390/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Shreenath Holding Pvt. Ltd…………...……………....……..…………..………………....……Appellant 33/34, Ramlal Mukherjee Lane 2Nd Floor Room No. 2D Howrah - 711106 [Pan: Aadcs 5887 P] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Kolkata…………………………..............….....….…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit, Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 24Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 26Th, 2020 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 2, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld.Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 17/10/2019, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Is A Company & Is Engaged In The Business Of Trading & Distribution Of Goods. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 16/08/2012 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.15,500/-. During The Year, The Assessee Raised Share Capital Including Premium Amounting To Rs.1,13,55,000/-. The Assessing Officer Conducted Enquiries & The Assessee Presented The Share Holders Including The Directors Of The Share Holding Companies Before The Assessing Officer. After Due Enquiry, The Assessing Officer Accepted The Explanations Of The Assessee That The Cash Credits In The Form Of Share Capital Were Genuine, Except In The Case Of M/S. Seacom Merchants, Which Had Applied For Shares. An Amount Of Rs. 20,00,000/- Pertaining To M/S. Seacom Merchants, Was Added.

21,70,00,000/- in case of I.T.A. No. 2390/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Shreenath Holding Pvt. Ltd first four entities and accepted similar credits of first four entities and accepted similar credits of ₹20,45,00,000/- to be genuine to be genuine satisfying all parameters of identity, genuineness and creditworthiness. It can satisfying all parameters of identity

ITO, WD-1(1), SILIGURI, SILIGURI vs. M/S CACHAR KING PLANTATIONS PVT. LTD., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Siliguri..………......……….........…………..………….…................Appellant Vs. M/S. Cachar King Plantations Pvt. Ltd..……...........…………..……………….…...……..…….......Respondent Situvita Tea Factory Bidhan Nagar Siliguri [Pan : Aabcc 0744 P] Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 12Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16Th , 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Siliguri, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 27/05/2015, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Is A Company & Is In The Business Of Investment In Shares & Securities. For The Assessment Year 2012-13, It E-Filed Its Original Return Of Income On 22/09/2012, Disclosing Total Business Income At Rs.3,71,534/-. The Assessment Order Was Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act, On 30/03/2015, Making An Addition Of Unexplained Cash Credit To The Tune Of Rs.1,30,00,000/-, U/S 68 Of The Act. This Was Set Off Against Carried Forward Losses & Gross Total Balance Was Determined At –Nil- Aggrieved The Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal. The Ld. First Appellate Authority Deleted The Addition For The Reasons Given In His Order.

Section 68 of the Act. Therefore, we do not want to interfere in the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) which is confirmed and consequently the appeal of Revenue is dismissed. ” 8.2. The ‘A’ Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. M/s. Maa Amba Towers Ltd.ITA No.1381/Kol/2015, Assessment Year 2012-13; order dt. 12/10/2018 under similar

ITO, WD-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TRITIUM COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Kolkata.………......……….........…………..………….…................Appellant Vs. M/S. Tritium Commodities………..........….……...........…………..……………….…...……..…….......Respondent 7, Babulal Lane Kolkata – 700 007 [Pan : Aacct 8286 G] Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sankar Halder, Addl. Cit Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 6Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 28Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 15/10/2015, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Assessee Is A Company & Is In The Business Of Investment In Shares & Securities. For The Assessment Year 2012-13, It Filed Its Return Of Income On 27/09/2017, Disclosing Nil Income. It Filed Its Original Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2008-09, On 22/10/2008, Declaring Total Loss Or Rs.14,726/-. The Assessment Order Was Passed U/S 147/143(3) Of The Act, On 24/06/2010. Thereafter The Ld. Cit(A), Passed An Order U/S 263 Of The Act, Setting Aside The Assessment Order Dt. 24/06/2010. The Assessing Officer Passed The Impugned Fresh Order In Pursuance To The Order U/S 263 Of The Act, Dt. 31/03/2014, Making An Addition Of The Share Application Money Of Rs.2.07 Crores U/S 68 Of The Act. Aggrieved The Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal. The Ld. First Appellate Authority Deleted The Addition For The Reasons Given In His Order.

Section 68 of the Act. Therefore, we do not want to interfere in the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) which is confirmed and consequently the appeal of Revenue is dismissed. ” 6.2. The ‘A’ Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. M/s. Maa Amba Towers Ltd.ITA No.1381/Kol/2015, Assessment Year 2012-13; order dt. 12/10/2018 under similar

DCIT, CIR.-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S JAGANNATH BANWARILAL TEXOFABS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

5] The Assessing Officer added Rs.95 lakhs as income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act only on the ground that the parties to whom the share certificates were issued and who had paid the share money had not appeared before the Assessing Officer and the summons could not be served on the addresses given as they were

M/S. MATARANI VINTRADE PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 15(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M. Jagtap, V.P (Kz) & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13

21,HemantaBasuSarani, Fifth Floor, Room No. 506, Kolkata-700 001. However, according to the Ld. AR before any enhancement of addition could have been made, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have given reasonable AY 2012-13 opportunity as contemplated in sub-section (2) of section 251 of the Act. Section 251(2) of the Act reads

DOLPHIN GOODS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-6(1), KOLKATA

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

5 Dolphin Goods (P) Ltd., AY 2009-10 A. To conduct independent, detailed and complete enquiries into subscription to the share capital and share premium and investment made and to verify the documents filed. B. To trace the source of share capital by inquiring into various layers. C. To examine the directors of the subscriber-companies as well as directors

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

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

5. Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who was pleased to delete the same. Aggrieved, the Revenue is before us. 6. Assailing the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in giving relief to the assessee company, the Ld. CIT-DR, Shri Mithilesh Kumar Jha submitted that the A.O issued notices

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]

5. Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who was pleased to delete the same. Aggrieved, the Revenue is before us. 6. Assailing the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in giving relief to the assessee company, the Ld. CIT-DR, Shri Mithilesh Kumar Jha submitted that the A.O issued notices

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

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

5. Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who was pleased to delete the same. Aggrieved, the Revenue is before us. 6. Assailing the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in giving relief to the assessee company, the Ld. CIT-DR, Shri Mithilesh Kumar Jha submitted that the A.O issued notices

JCIT(OSD),CIR.-12(1) , KOLKATA vs. M/S WEARIT GLOBAL LTD., KOLKATA

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

5. Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who was pleased to delete the same. Aggrieved, the Revenue is before us. 6. Assailing the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in giving relief to the assessee company, the Ld. CIT-DR, Shri Mithilesh Kumar Jha submitted that the A.O issued notices

KANCHAN PLYWOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., ,JALPAIGURI vs. ITO, WARD - 1(2), JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

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

5. Copy of PAN card. 6. Copy of ITR for the assessment year 2012-13. 7. Copy of audited balance sheet.” 11. We also note that from a perusal of the assessment order that the assessee had filed the audited balance sheet and other documents submitted by the investor companies before the AO and thus he could take note

I.T.O.,WARD-9(3), KOLKATA vs. M/S REWARD HIRISE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

68 of the Act of Rs. 2,77,70,000/- is hereby deleted.” 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We find that the assessee has raised share capital/share premium to the tune of Rs. 2,77,70,000/- from twenty two share subscribers out of whom 21 were individual subscribers

I.T.O.,WARD-9(3), KOLKATA vs. M/S REWARD HIRISE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

68 of the Act of Rs. 2,77,70,000/- is hereby deleted.” 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We find that the assessee has raised share capital/share premium to the tune of Rs. 2,77,70,000/- from twenty two share subscribers out of whom 21 were individual subscribers

TRADELINK CARRYING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-4(1), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkery, Am ]

68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( in short, the ‘Act’ hereinafter). 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed its e- return for the assessment year 2013-14 on 16-09-2013 declaring total income of Rs. 1,17,810/-. The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny through CASS. The AO notes

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

DCIT, CIRCLE-2, , ASANSOL vs. M/S. DIAMOND BOTTLING PLANT COMPANY, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, V.P & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.894/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit, Circle-2, Asansol Vs. M/S Diamond Bottling Plant Company C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Seven Brothers Lodge, P.O-Buroshibtala, P.S- Chinsurah, Hooghly, - 712105. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefd5674R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Sr. Dr Respondent By : Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 11/12/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Asansol Dated 30.01.2019 Passed In Case No.58/Cit(A)/Asl/Dcit/Cir-2/Asl/15-16 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Grievance Seeks To Revive Assessing Officer’S Action Treating Assessee’S Loans Of Rs.11,85,00,000/- As Unexplained Cash Credits U/S 68 Which Has Been Reversed To The Extent Of Rs.5,26,50,251/- In The Cit(A)’S Order. Its Case Accordingly Is That The Assessing Officer Had Rightly Added The Assessee’S Total Loan Amount Of Rs. 11,85,00,000/- Raised From Four Entities M/S Diamond Carbon Pvt. Ltd., M/S Mukherjee Capital Pvt. Ltd., M/S Wimper Trading & Distributors Pvt. Ltd. & M/S Mukherjee Farms Pvt. Ltd.

section 68 of the Income- tax Act and the Tribunal below rightly held that the onus was validly discharged. We, thus, find that both the authorities below, on consideration of the materials on record, rightly applied the correct law which are required to be applied in the facts of the present case and, thus, we do not find