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

221 (Kolkata- Trib.), wherein dealing with the similar issue, this Tribunal considering the facts of the case and judicial precedents deleted the addition u/s 68 of the Act on similar grounds observing as follows:- 25 I.T.A. No. 160 & 161/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. “9. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before

VISH REALTY SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-5(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 250/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vish Realty Solutions Private Limited Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3), 55, Ezra Street Vs Kolkata 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcv9938N] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. Jhajharia, A/R Revenue By : Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/01/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -10 (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(E)”) Dt. 02/12/2019, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Io, Kolkata Erred In Passing An Order Dated 2Nd Of December, 2019 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant Without Allowing Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 10, Kolkata Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Share Application Money Ofrs. 5,86,00,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On Irrelevant Considerations & Arbitrary Grounds.

221 (Kolkata- Trib.), wherein dealing with the similar issue, this Tribunal considering the facts of the case and judicial precedents deleted the addition u/s 68 of the Act on similar grounds observing as follows:- “9. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. Addition u/s 68 of the Act for unexplained share capital and share premium

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

221 (Kolkata- Trib.), wherein dealing with the similar issue, this Tribunal considering the facts of the case and judicial precedents deleted the addition u/s 68 of the Act on similar grounds observing as follows:- “9. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. Addition u/s 68 of the Act for unexplained share capital and share premium

M/S WISLEY REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-11(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 55/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 M/S. Wisley Real Estate Pvt. Ltd.,…..........Appellant 86C, Viswakarma, 1St Floor, Topsia Road, Tiljala, Kolkata-700046 [Pan:Aakcs8704L] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……..........................Respondent Ward-11(3), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri A.K. Tulsyan, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 18Th March, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: June 6Th , 2024 O R D E R

section 68 of the Act for the alleged sum and assessed the income at Rs.1,76,57,500/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). It was submitted by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) that the main object of the assessee-company is Real estate developments in various fields. The promoters

ITO, WARD-10(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S DREAMZ MET CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 2047/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ito, Ward-10(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Dreamz Met Construction Projects Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aagcm 2068 R ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 of the Act introduced with effect from April 1, 2013 will not have retrospective effect and would be effective only from the assessment year 2013-14. (c) In view of the above, question No. B as proposed also does not give rise to any 9 10 M/s Dreamz Met Construction Projects Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr. 2012-13 substantial question

DCIT, CC-2(4), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA vs. NARSINGH ISPAT LIMITED. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

221 (Kolkata- Trib.), wherein dealing with the similar issue, this Tribunal considering the facts of the case and judicial precedents deleted the addition u/s 68 of the Act on similar grounds observing as follows:- “9. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. Addition u/s 68 of the Act for unexplained share capital and share premium

M/S. INTER SECURITIES PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 7(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 609/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Inter Securities Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 7(3), 8, Camac Street Vs Kolkata 8Th Floor Suite No. 807 Kolkata - 700017 [Pan : Aacci 3971M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V. N. Dubey, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/09/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/10/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 3, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 15/02/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Is Bad In Law As Well As In Facts Of The Case. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law As Well As In Facts Of The Case By Confirming The Addiitons Made By Ld. A.O. Who Treated The Share Application Money Including Premium Of Rs.3,59,00,000/- As Bogus & Added Back The Same To The Total Income Of The Appellant U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2

221 (Kolkata- Trib.), wherein dealing with the similar issue, this Tribunal considering the facts of the case and judicial precedents deleted the addition u/s 68 of the Act on similar grounds observing as follows:- “9. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. Addition u/s 68 of the Act for unexplained share capital and share premium

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

221 in October 2010 after which there was a share split in the ratio of 1:2. The Ld. AO also analysed the modus operandi, the transactions and the details of inquiries conducted under section 131 of the Act and concluded that the assessee had pre-arranged accommodation entries to the tune of Rs. 63,76,486/- through

M/S MODERN MALLEABLES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 68 of the Act is attracted. We note that JV Agreement is between M/s. NCPL and assessee and the terms and conditions of the JV has been stated in the JV agreement found placed at page 1 to 21 of the paper book. From a perusal of the said agreement there is no clause which stipulated that

SRI RAMKRISHNA GHOSH,MEDINIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-27(1), HALDIA, HALDIA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

68. On the second issue, Ld. AO observed that assessee had sold two immovable properties and earned capital gains of Rs.43,36,221/- against which claimed a deduction of the same amount u/s. 54F of the Act. In order to substantiate the claim, assessee submitted the list of expenses 3 Sri Ramkrishna Ghosh, AY 2014-15 incurred on various items

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. DECORUM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED , HOWRAH

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, treating the same as unexplained cash credit, which was received by the assessee in the guise of unsecured loans arranged through accommodation entries. The assessee failed to furnish credible evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness of the loan creditors, and the genuineness of the transactions. The funds were routed through bank

ITO, WARD - 39(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI RAJESH KUMAR GOEL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

221 ITR 451 (Madras) has held as under:- “Section 68, read with Section 145 of the Income tax Act, 1961 – Cash

DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. R.M. COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

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

Section 68 of the Act on account of corporate deposits of Rs. 1,42,95,699/ deposits of Rs. 1,42,95,699/-". 4. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has That on the facts and in circumstances of the case

DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. R.M. COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

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

Section 68 of the Act on account of corporate deposits of Rs. 1,42,95,699/ deposits of Rs. 1,42,95,699/-". 4. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has That on the facts and in circumstances of the case

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

221 of the Act. Secondly, he is liable to pay interest at the prescribed rate on the amount of such tax from the date on which such tax was deductible to the date when such tax is actually paid. The third consequence is that it creates a statutory charge upon all the assets of the defaulter for the amount

M/S VINAYAK FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

68, read with section 147, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Cash credit\n(Accommodation entry) - Assessment year 2008-09- Information was received from\ninvestigation wing that assessee-company was a beneficiary of accommodation entries\nreceived from certain established entry operators - During investigation, it was found\nthat entry operators were engaged in money laundering business for beneficiaries\nAccording

DCIT, CC-2(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BALAJI AGRO PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Central Circle-2(4), M/S Balaji Agro Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, A5-6 Sarkarpool Maheshtala, 4Th Floor, 110 Shantipally, E.M. New Budge Budge Trunk Rd. Vs. Bypass, Kolkata-700107 Gopalpur 24 Paraganas South West Bengal Kolkata-700143, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcb9078M Assessee By : Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2025

Section 68 of the Act cannot be applied where the repayment of loan has been made even in the subsequent year. The case of the assessee also finds support from the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Ambe Tradecorp (P.) Ltd. (2022) 145 taxmann.com 27 (Gujarat), in which the Hon'ble High

HYGIEA BIOGENICS (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarmaआयकर अपील संख्या: 145/कोल/2020 धनिाारण वषाः 2015-16

221/- arrived at after making addition amounting to Rs. 1,89,88,330/-. 5. The assessee challenged this addition before ld. CIT(A) but partly succeeded. 6. Now, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal challenging the issue of disallowance of loss incurred on sale of land at Rs. 1,82,90,217/- and addition u/s 68