BIDIT FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.579/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

Section 68 of the Act and we thus find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the authorities.” 22

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

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)

section 68 namely: identity, creditworthiness and genuineness. Therefore, Assessing Officer was right in making the disallowance u/s 68 of the Act. Apart from this, the assessee has introduced his unaccounted money by way of issuing shares at a higher premium. The assessee company does not have much track record and goodwill therefore it is not able to fetch

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.

section 68 of the Act, in the hands of the assessee company, as the Department itself accepted genuine money in the company, as the Department itself accepted genuine money in the hands of M/s hands of M/s Haven Vincom Pvt. Ltd. Hence, in the case of M/s Haven Vincom Pvt. Ltd, the Haven Vincom Pvt. Ltd. Hence

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]

68 an Assessing Officer is free to show, with the help of the inquiry conducted by him into the transactions, which have taken place between the creditor and the sub-creditor, that the transaction between the two were not genuine and that the sub-creditor had no creditworthiness, it will not necessarily mean that the loan advanced

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

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

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

68 for the A.Y 2014-15.” 4. Accordingly, the A.O made an addition of Rs.7,69,71,990/-. 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

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

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

68 for the A.Y 2014-15.” 4. Accordingly, the A.O made an addition of Rs.7,69,71,990/-. 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

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

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

68 for the A.Y 2014-15.” 4. Accordingly, the A.O made an addition of Rs.7,69,71,990/-. 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

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]

68 for the A.Y 2014-15.” 4. Accordingly, the A.O made an addition of Rs.7,69,71,990/-. 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

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.

22,25,276/- (Rs.1 ,20,00,000/- - Rs.97,74,724/-) is held to be sourced from the share capital and share premium received by M/s Mukherjee Capital Pvt. Ltd. and is held to be unexplained. Thus appeal to the extent of Rs.22,25,276/- is not allowed and appeal to the extent of Rs.97,94,724/- is allowed in respect

D.C.I.T., CC-3(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. FORUM PROJECT PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the three captioned appeals of the revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.(Ss)A Nos.108,109&585/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Cc-3(2), Kolkata..................................................................……Appellant Vs. M/S Forum Projects Pvt. Ltd...........................……........……...…..…..Respondent 4/1, Red Cross Place, Dalhousie, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aadcs7575E] Appearances By: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, Cit(Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 30, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 05, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Dated 20.05.2022, 08.06.2022 & 25.11.2014 Respectively Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Contesting Therein The Confirmation Of Additions Made By The Assessing Officer (In Short ‘The A.O) In The Assessments Carried Out U/S 153A Of The Act. Since The Facts & Issues Involved In All These Appeals Are Identical, Hence These Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. First We Take Revenue’S Appeal In Ita No.108/Kol/2022 For Assessment Year 2010-11. I.T.(Ss)A Nos.108,109&585/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/S Forum Projects Pvt. Ltd.

section 2(22)e were satisfied. In this case however, the accumulated profits of the lending company amounted only Rs 84,85,793/-. To this amount, the AO added Rs 79,63,003/-, being the total surplus for the current year available as on the date of advance of this amount, thus coming to a total amount available

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. MAA ANNAPURNA TRANSPORT AGENCY LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkery, Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

68 an Assessing Officer is free to show, with the help of the inquiry conducted by him into the transactions, which have taken place between the creditor and the sub-creditor, that the transaction between the two were not genuine and that the sub-creditor had no creditworthiness, it will not necessarily mean that the loan advanced

BIMAL KUMAR DROLIA,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-43(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

68, but only 0.15 per cent of the said deposit. It is viewed, therefore, the Tribunal has adopted a very casual approach to such a serious matter of rampant tax evasion by merely saying issue is covered. In such cases Tribunal should not go by the concession of the assessee but it was their duty to examine the issue

BALHANUMAN COMMODEAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(4), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13

68 of the Act and whether the decision of the tribunal is perverse. 17. With regard to the role of the assessing officer, the Hon'ble Court held that the assessing officer is both an investigator and an adjudicator; when a fact is alleged and stated before the assessing officer by an assessee, he must and should examine and verify

BALAKA VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 160 & 161/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), 9/12, Lal Bazar Street Vs Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcb2610B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R & Saurav Gupta, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Instant Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”). Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 29/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act & Ita No. 161/Kol/2023, Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 28/11/2023, Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act, For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds In Both These Appeals, But The Effective Issue Raised In Ita No. 161/Kol/2024 Is Against The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act For Unexplained Share Capital Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) & In Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Addition Made

section 68 of the Act. Thereafter when the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A), filing complete details and also stating that the source of source of the alleged sum is duly proved with the fact that both the alleged share applicants have received equity share capital and share premium in the preceding years and those years have