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

272 (Bombay) wherein it was held by High Court that the proviso to section 68 of the Act has been

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.

272 (Bombay) wherein it was held by High Court that the proviso to section 68 of the Act has been

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

272 (Bombay) wherein it was held by High Court that the proviso to section 68 of the Act has been

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

272 (Bombay) wherein it was held by High Court that the proviso to section 68 of the Act has been

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

272 (Bombay) wherein it was held by High Court that the proviso to section 68 of the Act has been

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

272 (Bombay) wherein it was held by High Court that the proviso to section 68 of the Act has been

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(4) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PKC COMMODITIES (P) 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.2632/Kol/2018 (िनधा"रणवष"S / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit, Cc-3(4), Kolkata Vs. M/S Pkc Commodities (P) Ltd. 1, R.N. Mukherjee Rd, Martin Burn House, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata- 700001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aabcr 5112 J (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

272, dated March 20 , 2017, declares that amendment to section 68 is prospective in nature and applicable only from

M/S STARLAND VINIMAY PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

272 (Bombay) wherein it was held by High Court that the proviso to section 68 of the Act has been

M/S KRISHILAKSHMI RICE MILL PVT. LTD.,BURDWAN vs. I.T.O.,WARD-1(2), BURDWAN

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 605/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Krishilakshmi Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward - Vill.- Hatgobindapur Vs 1(2), Kolkata Dist.- Burdwan Pincode - 713407 [Pan : Aaeck1877C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Is The Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - Burdwan (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 25/01/2019 For The Assessment Year 2012-13, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Ld. C.I.T.(A) On 25.01.2019 Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal. 2. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.207,00,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Share Application Money With Share Premium By Wrongly Treating The Same As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 Which Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal. 3. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Considered That The Assessee Company Had Discharged Its Onus By Furnishing All The Relevant Documents In Connection With The Share Capital Raised & Also Proved The Identity, Creditworthiness Of The Share Application And

272 (Bombay) wherein it was held by High Court that the proviso to section 68 of the Act has been

DEPUTY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(4),KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA vs. PCJ FINVEST PRIVATE LIMITED, SILIGURI, WEST BENGAL

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 68 of the Act has been introduced by Finance Act,\n2012, with effect from 01.04.2013, and was accordingly, applicable\nfrom A.Y. 20131-4 onwards. Therefore, the observation of the AO that\nthe equity shares were issued at a very high premium is devoid of\nany marits. The Id. Counsel for the assessee stated that the proviso to\nSection

M/S. RADISON PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 8(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 11/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Radison Projects Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 8(3), 21, Camac Street Vs Kolkata Happy House Kolkata - 700016 [Pan : Aafcr7565P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate & Shri Pranabesh Sarkar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/03/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Is The Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 14/12/2022 For The Assessment Year 2012-13, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Ld. C.I.T. (A) On 14.12.2022 Which Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal. 2. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.1,37,00,000/- Made By The A.O. On Account Of Share Application Money With Share Premium By Wrongly Treating The Same As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 Which Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal. 3. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Considered That The Assessee Company Had Discharged Its Onus By Furnishing All The Relevant Documents In Connection With The Share Capital Raised & Also

272 (Bombay) wherein it was held by High Court that the proviso to section 68 of the Act has been

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

272 (Bombay) wherein it was held by High Court that the proviso to section 68 of the Act has been

M/S. DWARKA GOODS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

272 (Bombay) wherein it was held by High Court that the proviso to section 68 of the Act has been

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

272 (Bombay) wherein it was held by High Court that the proviso to section 68 of the Act has been

INCOME TAX OFICER, WARD - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. R J C DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Rjc Developers Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1) 52A, Shakespeare Sarani, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7 Chandan Niketan, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Unit No.405, Kolkata-700017 Kolkata-700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecr2766F Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kallol Mistry, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2025

272, wherein it is held that the amendment to section 68 is prospective and is applicable from AY 2013-14. Accordingly

D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. WISE INVESTMENT PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 163/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 D.C.I.T. Central Circle – 1(4), Kolkata M/S. Wise Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs 3Rd Floor 5, Govind Chand Dhar Lane Kolkata - 700001 [Pan: Aaacw3141R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/11/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeals -21, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 26/12/2022, 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. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit (A) Is Justified In Deleting Addition Made U/S. 68 Of Rs.32,50,00,000/- Ignoring The Remand Report Dated 20.07.2022 Wherein The Report Categorically Stated That The Share Applicant Company Has No Creditworthiness To Invest In The Assesses Company. 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit (A) Was Erroneous As It Had Not Taken Cognizance Of The Fact That The 2

272 (Bombay); the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports P. Ltd., 216 CTR 195(SC), judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Gujarat) and other case-laws. 4.1. The ld. CIT(A) based on the facts stated

ITO,WARD-8(2),KOL, KOLKATA vs. M/S. INDUS REALTY PVT. LTD. , KOLKATA.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

68 of the Act. 4. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (Mumbai), the Hon’ble Mumbai Bench of ITAT. The Bombay High Court in the same appellant’s case in [2017] 80 taxmann.com 272 (Bombay) has held that- “We find that the proviso to section

RAMESHWAR FINVEST PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Central Circle 3(3) Rameshwar Finvest Private Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, Limited Santil Palli, 110, Eastern 111, Park Street, Kolkata- Metropolitan Bypass, Opposite Vs. 700016, West Bengal Ruby, Kasba, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcr1053N Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan & Ms. Puja Somani, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.12.2025

Section 68 of the Act was inserted by Finace Act, 2012, with effect from 01.04.2013 and the said amendment is not retrospective in nature and is effective from A.Y. 2013-14 onwards. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT Vs. M/s Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 80 taxmann.com 272

SOUBHIK EXPORTS LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-8(2), KOLKATA / N E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI. , DELHI

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

Section 14A of the Act and made disallowance of Rs.22,30,363/- and accordingly, assessed income at Rs.21,19,68,463/-. 4. Aggrieved the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but even after making detailed submissions and placing evidence on record, could not succeed on the issue of addition u/s 68 of the Act and the addition