RAVI JALAN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, Ground r.w

68,151/- interalia, denying the benefit claimed by the assessee u/s 47 (xiv) of the Act, in respect of transfer of assets and liabilities of the proprietary concern M/s. Ravi Jalan to a Private Limited Company, M/s. J.S. Tradex Pvt. Ltd. Consequent to the denial of the benefit u/s 47(xiv), the Assessing Officer alternatively computing the income in question

GAURAV VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

68,000/- as Short term Capital Gains by invoking the provisions of section 50D of the Act and assessed the total income of the assessee at ₹15,11,71,870/- u/s 143(3) of the Act. 3.1 Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who perused the assessment order, considered

SEEMA SUREKA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(3), KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

56(2) of the Act even the gift received from the\nfather. Accordingly, the order passed by the AO confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is set\naside and addition made under the same section is hereby directed to be deleted.\nThe Ld. AR also averred that even u/s 10(2) of the Act, the impugned\namount would

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. In defence of his argument, ld. A.R. relied on the following decisions:- (i) Green Fields Hotels & Estates (389 ITR 68

SATYAM SUREKA ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the different assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey] I.T.(S.S).A. No. 13 /Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 Satyam Sureka Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-3(3), Kolkata

section 56(2)(vii) as income from other sources. iii) That the Hon’ble CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming Rs. 6,31,000/- as unexplained money u/s 68

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MIRA BIBI, MURSHIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68 of the Act.\n5.2.2. In the Income Tax Act, 1961, the section deals with taxability of gifts is section\n56(2). More specifically, if the gift was given in the period 01.10.2009 to 31.03.2017,\nthe striking section is 56(2)(vii

M/S. MATARANI VINTRADE PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 15(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M. Jagtap, V.P (Kz) & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13

68 of the Act with effect from 01-04-2013 and is not applicable in this relevant AY. 6. Further on the point of taxation in respect of share premium it was pointed out by the Ld. AR that as per definition of income as provided under section 2(24) of the Act at the relevant point of time

M/S EVAN VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,AGRA vs. PR, C.I.T.-4, KOLKATA

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

vii) (b) in sub-section(2) to section 56 of the Act by which the share premium could have been ascertained and brought to tax. The Ld. AR also pointed out that only from AY 2013-14, the AO when considering section 68

M/S BRIDHI DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD.,AGRA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

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

vii) List of shareholders viii) Details of bank accounts 21. The Second AO acknowledges in his order sheet as on 19.5.2016 that he had issued summons u/s 131 of the Act and pursuant to which thirteen (13) share subscribing companies respective Directors had appeared before him on 30/31.05.2016, and they were examined along with their respective books of 18 Bridhi

ITO, WARD - 11(3), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. LNB RENEWABLE ENERGY PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

vii b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal filed by the Revenue in this respect is unjustified and without any substance and is liable to be dismissed in limine. 2.That the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was fully justified in accepting the Valuation Report obtained from the Income Tax registered Valuer for issue

AMRITRASHI INFRA(P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.C.I.T.-4, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2012-13 Amritrashi Infra Private Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax- (Pan: Aakca2544E) 4, Kolkata.

vii) List of shareholders viii) Details of bank accounts 26. The AO also acknowledges in his re-assessment / second assessment order that he has examined the aforesaid details and thereafter issued notices u/s. 133(6) of the Act to all 18 Amritrashi Infra Private Limited,AY- 2012-13 the shareholders and directed them to prove their identity, genuineness and creditworthiness

BHARAT ELEVATORS & ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-5(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz)] [Through Virtual Court] I.T.A. No. 2646/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Bharat Elevators & Engineers Private Limited......................................……….Appellant 22, Strand Road, 1St Floor, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Aaccb 4329 C] Vs Ito, Ward – 5(3), Kolkata...................………………………………………………................Respondent Appearances By: Shri Giridhar Dhelia, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit, Sr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 16, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 28, 2021 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata Dated 25.11.2019 & The Solitary Issue Involved Therein Relates To The Addition Of Rs. 8,25,000/- Made By The Ao & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) U/S 56(2)(Vii)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is A Company Which Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of All Kinds Of Elevators, Hoists & Other Material Handling Equipments. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed By It On 27.09.2013 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 9,54,154/-. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Had Issued 4 Lack Shares At Rs. 26.08 Per Share Including Premium. The Fair Market Value Of The Said

68 of the Act and under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act is deleted.” 4. Since the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Lalithaa Jewellery Mart Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) is squarely applicable to the issue involved in the present case, I respectfully follow the same and delete the addition made

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

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

section 133(6) I.T.A No. 55/Kol/2020,I.T.A. No.20/Kol/2019, I.T.A. No.2191/Kol/2018 & I.T.A. No.115/Kol/2020 M/s Wearit Global Ltd. Assessment years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2016-17 notice, pursuant to which, when the A.O had issued summons u/s 131of the Act, instead of notices u/s 133(6) as directed by him, the Ld. CIT(A) found fault with the action

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

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

section 133(6) I.T.A No. 55/Kol/2020,I.T.A. No.20/Kol/2019, I.T.A. No.2191/Kol/2018 & I.T.A. No.115/Kol/2020 M/s Wearit Global Ltd. Assessment years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2016-17 notice, pursuant to which, when the A.O had issued summons u/s 131of the Act, instead of notices u/s 133(6) as directed by him, the Ld. CIT(A) found fault with the action

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

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

section 133(6) I.T.A No. 55/Kol/2020,I.T.A. No.20/Kol/2019, I.T.A. No.2191/Kol/2018 & I.T.A. No.115/Kol/2020 M/s Wearit Global Ltd. Assessment years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2016-17 notice, pursuant to which, when the A.O had issued summons u/s 131of the Act, instead of notices u/s 133(6) as directed by him, the Ld. CIT(A) found fault with the action

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]

section 133(6) I.T.A No. 55/Kol/2020,I.T.A. No.20/Kol/2019, I.T.A. No.2191/Kol/2018 & I.T.A. No.115/Kol/2020 M/s Wearit Global Ltd. Assessment years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2016-17 notice, pursuant to which, when the A.O had issued summons u/s 131of the Act, instead of notices u/s 133(6) as directed by him, the Ld. CIT(A) found fault with the action

M/S GOODPOINT STOCKIST PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-4, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Shrigirishagrawal, Am]

vii) share holders list (viii) Bank account details. The second AO has acknowledged in his reassessment order that he has examined the details furnished before him. And that he has verified the identity, creditworthiness &genuinety of share subscribers as well as the source of fund. And he has recorded in his re-assessment/second assessment order that ShriVinay Kumar Singh

FIZAAN COMMOTRADE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-15(1), KOLKATA

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

56 of the paper book from where it is discerned that M/s. Quest Financial Services Ltd. has transferred an amount of Rs. 1 crore by RTGS on 27.03.2012. Perusal of page 67 of paper book reveals the source of source of this amount. Thus, according to the Ld. AR, the assessee has discharged the burden on it to prima facie

ITO, WARD - 13(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GOURI NANDAN REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD.,, HOWRAH

In the result, we uphold the same and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

56(2)(vii) has also been relied upon. Case of Jatia Investment Company of Calcutta High Court reported in 206 ITR page 7-8 delivered on the provisions of section-68 has also been relied upon wherein sum has been defined as money and has been held that section 68