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.

214 ITR 801 (SC) and CIT vs. Durga Prasad SC) and CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) is further quoted during the cour (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) is further quoted during the course of hearing that se of hearing that the relevant evidence submitted during the course of assessment has to be the relevant evidence

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]

214 ITR 801) and the theory of preponderance of the probability and taking into account the fact that share applicants did not comply with the notice u/s 131, the AO held that the assessee company had failed to establish the evidences furnished by the share applicants by not producing them and hence it failed in its duty to discharge

TRUE-MAN CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-7(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

214 ITR 801 and made the addition u/s 68 of the Act for the alleged unexplained cash credit of Rs. 6.52 Crore received by the assessee towards share capital and share premium. Ld. AO also made disallowance u/s 14A of the Act of Rs. 1,02,350/- observing that the assessee had made investments in equity shares. Income assessed

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 can be no different in respect of issue of share capital by closely held companies vis-a-vis loans or 9 Swift Vintrade Pvt. ltd., AY: 2009-10 gifts. The High Court in CIT v. Maithan International [2015] 375 ITR 123/231 Taxman 381156 taxmann.com ?83 (Cal.)J CIT v. Active Traders (P.) Ltd.[1995] 214

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 without making aforesaid enquiry was not sustainable." In view of above factual and legal pronouncements, the ground is Allowed.” 11. From perusal of the finding of the ld. CIT(A) as well as the decisions referred therein and the factual matrix of the case, we notice that the ld. Assessing Officer carried out the assessment proceedings

NAVANSH VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

68 of the Act, in the absence of any explanation to substantiate the receipt by the assessee and added to the total income of the assessee. As the assessee has deliberately and wilfully furnished inaccurate particulars of income, a conclusion which is obvious from the discussion made in the order, penalty under section 271(1)(c) is also initiated

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

214 ITR 801) and Sreelekha Banerjee's case (1963) 49 ITR (SC) 112 squarely applies in the case of the assessee. Respectfully following the above judgments, the order of the A.O. making an addition of Rs.3,25,00,000/- under section 68

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

214 ITR 801) and Sreelekha Banerjee's case (1963) 49 ITR (SC) 112 squarely applies in the case of the assessee. Respectfully following the above judgments, the order of the A.O. making an addition of Rs.3,25,00,000/- under section 68

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. GOLDEN GOENKA CREDIT PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

68. Fortunately, for the assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals) has done an elaborate factual exercise, took into consideration, the creditworthiness of the 13 companies the details of which were furnished by the assessee. More importantly, the Commissioner noted that all these companies responded to the notices issued under section 133(6) which fact has not been denied by the Assessing

KAJAL KUMAR ROY,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD - 1(4), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M. Jagtap] I.T.A. No. 1568/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Kajal Kumar Roy.............................…………………………………………Appellant C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, “Seven Brothers”, Lodge, Buroshibtala, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 105 [Pan : Adgprs 8137 G] Income Tax Officer...................……………………………………………….......Respondent Ward 1(4), Hooghly Aayakar Bhawan, G.T. Road Khadina More, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 101 Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Satyajit Mondal, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 31, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 22, 2017 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 6, Kolkata Dated 20.04.2017 & The Solitary Issue Involved Therein Relates To The Addition Of Rs. 13,03,000/- Made By The A.O. & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit (A) On Account Of Loans Taken By The Assessee From Four Parties By Treating The Same As Unexplained Cash Credits Under Section 68. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual Who Is Engaged In The Business Of Trading Of Potatos. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed By Him On 25.09.2011 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 10,92,457/- Including Agricultural Income Of Rs.

section 68 of the Act. This is the settled position of law. In spite of the furnishing of various documents, the appellant cannot be said to have established the capacity of the creditors to lend. Further, it was held in the case of Sumati Dayal vs CIT (SC) 214

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

214 ITR 801, added the share capital contribution of Rs. 3,03,90,000/- as income of the assessee invoking the provisions of Section 68

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)

214 ITR 801 (SC) and CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) is further quoted during the course of hearing that the relevant evidence submitted during the course of assessment has to be considered as per the human probabilities by removing all blinkers. Our attention is thereafter invited to the relevant nuances of such share subscription routing

TOPLINK DEVELOPERS CONSULTANCY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

214 ITR 801 and observed that it was beyond the human probability that investor companies having no regular finance, were able to invest Page 2 of 16 I.T.A. No.: 710/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Toplink Developers Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. a huge amount that too at a huge share premium to the capital of the assessee company and accordingly entire amount

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND SPONGE AND IRON PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 68 of the Act.\n3.1 While the assessing officer dealt with unexplained cash credit from the M/s. Satya\nRetail Private Limited and from M/s. J.A Infracon Private Limited in his order in paras\n5.1 and 5.2 respectively, the Commissioner of Income-tax in the appeal preferred by\nassessee found on facts and the material before it that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND SPONGE AND IRON PRIVATE LIMITED , PATNA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 68 of the Act.\n3.1 While the assessing officer dealt with unexplained cash credit from the M/s. Satya\nRetail Private Limited and from M/s. J.A Infracon Private Limited in his order in paras\n5.1 and 5.2 respectively, the Commissioner of Income-tax in the appeal preferred by\nassessee found on facts and the material before it that

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 ]

214/-). Thus total loan of Rs.1,16,67,674/-. (f) We note that the assessee company is closely held legal entity and the shareholders (five in numbers) are all from the same group which is evident from the details given in page 2 paper book Vol. 11. (g) We note that the return filed by assessee was taken

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND CEMENT & ROOFINGS PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 68 of the Act.\n3.1 While the assessing officer dealt with unexplained cash credit from the M/s. Satya\nRetail Private Limited and from M/s. J.A Infracon Private Limited in his order in paras\n5.1 and 5.2 respectively, the Commissioner of Income-tax in the appeal preferred by\nassessee found on facts and the material before it that

ITO, WARD-46(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ANUPAM NANDI, HOWRAH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri Aby T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.774/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2007-08 I.T.O., Ward-46(1) -Vs.- Shri Anupam Nandi Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Abipn 4303 N] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Md.Ghayas Uddin, Jcit,Sr.Dr For The Respondent : Shri Miraj D.Shah, Ar

section 68 of the Act had been rightly invoked by the ld AO in the instant case. He relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs CIT reported in 214