ACIT, CIRCLE - 35, , KOLKATA vs. M/S. MACHINERY AGENCIES INDIA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act and consequently deleted the disallowance of Rs. 3,10,478/-, which was made with respect to interest and when the same has been confirmed by the ITAT, it cannot be said that ITAT has committed any error and/or illegality, which calls for the interference of this Court. In paragraph 11, ITAT

M/S GREEN STAR CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 45, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2011-12

68 - Held, yes Section 41(1) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 -Remission or cessation of trading liability - Assessment year 2002-03 - Whether in view of facts stated under heading 'cash credits', since amounts-in-question were brought forward balances, they could not be added to income of assessee for year under consideration, as question of genuineness thereof could

HILTON COMMODITIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Hilton Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward 5(3) 9/12, Lal Bazar Street, Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Mercantile Building, Block-B, Chowringhee Square, Vs. 3Rd Floor, No.10, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacch1011P Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Ar Revenue By : Shri S Datta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025

35. To sum up section 68 of the Act provides that if any sum found credited in the year in respect of which the assessee fails to explain the nature and source shall be assessed as its undisclosed income. In the facts of the present case, both the nature & source of the share application received was fully explained

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)

35. To sum up section 68 of the Act provides that if any sum found credited in the year in respect of which the assessee fails to explain the nature and source shall be assessed as its undisclosed income. In the facts of the present case, both the nature & source of the share application received was fully explained

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

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.

35. To sum up section 68 of the Act provides that if any sum found credited in the year in respect of which the assessee fails to explain the nature and source shall be assessed as its undisclosed income. In the facts of the present case, both the nature & source of the share application received was fully explained

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.

35. To sum up section 68 of the Act provides that if any sum found credited in the year in respect of which the assessee fails to explain the nature and source shall be assessed as its undisclosed income. In the facts of the present case, both the nature & source of the share application received was fully explained

JASHOJIT MUKHERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 403/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Jashojit Mukherjee -Vs- Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata [Pan: Afapm 7208 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 are satisfied. 12. As far as applicability of section 41(1) of the Act is concerned, the question before us is limited to the applicability of Section 41(1) of the Act. The section insofar as it is relevant for our purpose is as below: "Profits chargeable to tax. 41. (1) Where an allowance or deduction

ZYDUS HEALTHCARE LTD,GANGTOK vs. ACIT, CIR. 3(2), GANGTOK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 139/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Zydus Healhcare Limited,……..................Appellant (Successor To Zydus Healthcare Sikkim), 4Th Floor, ‘D’ Wing, Zudus Corporate Park, Scheme No. 63, Survey No. 536, Khoraj (Gandhinagar), Nr. Vaishnodevi Circle, Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Gujrat-382481 [Pan: Aaacg1895Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim-737101 Appearances By: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, Ca & Sonal Pandey, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 20, 2023 O R D E R

68,350/-. The ld. Assessing Officer has accepted the returned income by way of an assessment order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act passed on 18.08.2016. The ld. Principal Commissioner, Siliguri took cognizance of revisionary powers under section 263 of the Income Tax Act and set aside the assessment order vide his order dated

EIH LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-8(1)KOL., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Eih Ltd V/S. Dcit, Circle-8(1), 4, Mangoe Lane, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Kolkata-700 001 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaace 6898 B] Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Ravi Sharma, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 27-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-05-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, (Drp For Short) Dated 17.10.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata U/S 144C(13)/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 29.11.2016 For Assessment Year 2012-13 & Grounds Raised By Assessee Read As Under:- “1.0 Determination Of Arm'S Length Price For Corporate Guarantee Fees 1.1 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Tpo") & Accordingly Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Ao") Erred In Treating The Corporate Guarantee Extended By The Appellant To Its Associated Enterprise (Ae) As International Transaction & Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Panel") Erred In Confirming The Same As An International Transaction Without Appreciating The Fact That It Does Not Fall Within The Ambit Of "International Transaction" U/S 92B Of The Act. 1.2 The Ld.Ao/Tpo & The Ld. Panel Failed To Appreciate The Fact That Corporate Guarantee Has Been Advanced By The Appellant As A Matter Of Commercial Prudence To Protect The Business Interest Of The Group By Fulfilling

35 1. Advertisements in magazines and web site listing The assessee being in the luxury hospitality, its business heavily depends on clients for the western world. Consequently, as in the past it spent a considerable sum of money on advertisements both in the print and web media. As already explained in the past years, such advertisements are printed mostly

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

M/S SHRISTI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-11(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal]

68,95,685/- was claimed. Assessment proceedings were completed wherein ld.A.O made disallowance of Rs. 4,22,409/- u/s 36(1)(va) in respect of employees’ contribution to provident fund and ESI which was deposited to the Govt. Account beyond the prescribed due date. Further, disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) was made of Rs. 1,35

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA,KOLKATA vs. M/S PRB SECURITIES 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. 211/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Prb Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcp 5425 G ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 68 - On appeal, Tribunal deleted addition observing that DMAT account and contract note showed credit/details of share transactions; and that revenue had stopped inquiry at particular point and did not carry forward it to discharge basic onus - Whether on facts, transactions in shares were rightly held to be genuine and addition made by Assessing Officer was rightly deleted

INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S STANDARD LEATHER PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2010-11

1), Kol. vs. M/s Standard Leather Pvt. Ltd. Page 17 circumstances, the assessing officer was not justified in making the impugned addition u/s 68 and as such no fault could be found with the order of the Tribunal which had endorsed the decision of Commissioner (Appeals). In Mahabir Prasad Prem Chand Jain v. ITO (1988) 40 Taxman 35 (Del- Trib

M/S BALMER LAWRIES & CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT) WD-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 M/S Balmer Lawrie & Co. V/S. Income Tax Officer Ltd., 21, N.S.Road, (International Taxation), Kolkata-700 001 Ward-1(1), Aayakar [Pan No. Aabcb 0984 E] Bhawan (Poorva), 2Nd Floor, R. No.215, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata- 700 107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri M.K.Poddar, Sr-Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri C.P.Bhatia, Jcit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 18-02-2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 27-04-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement

68 SOT 184 (Bang). 8. Therefore, the law is by now well settled that there is no requirement to deduct any tax at source if the amount paid to non-resident is not chargeable to tax in India. Reliance in this connection is placed inter alia on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Van Oord

ITO, WARD - 3(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. C D STEEL PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013 14

35,622/-- and Rs.1,25,30,000/- as cessation of liability.” 6. Heard Learned Departmental Representative vehemently reiterating the Revenue’s stand in support of the impugned section 41(1) addition of cessation of liability. It is an admitted fact that assessee’s books have been ITA No.1360/Kol/2017

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

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

Section 68 by Finance Bill, 2012 which has taken note of various decision of the court where the courts have drawn a distinction and emphasised that in case of private placement of shares the legal regime should be different from that which is followed in the case of a company seeking share capital from the public at large