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

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

58,000/-, Laxmiputra Tradecomm Pvt. Ltd. of Rs.1,59,12,300/-, Jintan Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. of Rs.1,11,15,600/-, Newzone Vintrade Pvt. Ltd. of Rs.1,11,16,190/- and Brijbhumi Commosale Pvt. Ltd. of Rs.1,09,15,000/- totalling to Rs.7,69,71,990/- is added back to total income of the assessee u/s 68

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

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

58,000/-, Laxmiputra Tradecomm Pvt. Ltd. of Rs.1,59,12,300/-, Jintan Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. of Rs.1,11,15,600/-, Newzone Vintrade Pvt. Ltd. of Rs.1,11,16,190/- and Brijbhumi Commosale Pvt. Ltd. of Rs.1,09,15,000/- totalling to Rs.7,69,71,990/- is added back to total income of the assessee u/s 68

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]

58,000/-, Laxmiputra Tradecomm Pvt. Ltd. of Rs.1,59,12,300/-, Jintan Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. of Rs.1,11,15,600/-, Newzone Vintrade Pvt. Ltd. of Rs.1,11,16,190/- and Brijbhumi Commosale Pvt. Ltd. of Rs.1,09,15,000/- totalling to Rs.7,69,71,990/- is added back to total income of the assessee u/s 68

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

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

58,000/-, Laxmiputra Tradecomm Pvt. Ltd. of Rs.1,59,12,300/-, Jintan Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. of Rs.1,11,15,600/-, Newzone Vintrade Pvt. Ltd. of Rs.1,11,16,190/- and Brijbhumi Commosale Pvt. Ltd. of Rs.1,09,15,000/- totalling to Rs.7,69,71,990/- is added back to total income of the assessee u/s 68

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.

section 68 of the Income- tax Act and the Tribunal below rightly held that the onus was validly discharged. We, thus, find that both the authorities below, on consideration of the materials on record, rightly applied the correct law which are required to be applied in the facts of the present case and, thus, we do not find

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]

58) of ITAT Jaipur Bench interpreting the word sum as used in section 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

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-49(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S VISWAKARMA RESIDENCY, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. M.L.Meenaआयकर अपील सं.य/ Assessment Years:2016-17 बनाम / Acit, Cir-49(1), Kolkata M/S. Viswakarma Residency Uttarpan Complex, Ds-Iv, V/S. 2Nd Fl., Manicktala Civick Centre, Block-2 & 3, 2Nd Fl., Kolkata-700 054. Pan: Aaifv3279Q अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent .. Hearing Through Video Conferencing अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Manish Kanojia, Cit, Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri S.M Surana, Advocate, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-08-2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26-10-2021

section 68. j. Commissioner of Income­tax v. Mark Hospitals (P) Ltd. [2015] 58 taxmann.com 226 (Madras) Assessee had obtained

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

Section 68 of the Act to explain the nature and source, in other words, unable to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the share applicants and genuineness of the transaction. 8. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the paperbook and details has submitted that all the share applicant companies are duly registered with the Ministry

L B SAREE EMPORIUM,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 43, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

section 68 of the Act at Rs.1,26,50,000/- and also delete the disallowance of interest of Rs.9,45,564/- confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals), which was paid by the assessee to the alleged cash creditors. Thus Grounds No. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee are allowed. 12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. LAL BABA SEAMLESS TUBES PVT. LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes, while the appeal of the Revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section 68 of the I.T. Act in the hand of the assessee. Addition:- Rs. 30,00,000 04. M/s Dalmia Industrial Development Limited:- During the year the assessee received of Rs.1,45,00,000 as unsecured loan from the company. The A/R furnished loan confirmation, Balance sheet, Bank statement and copy of ITR acknowledgment. After perusal of records furnished

LAL BABA SEAMLESS TUBES (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes, while the appeal of the Revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section 68 of the I.T. Act in the hand of the assessee. Addition:- Rs. 30,00,000 04. M/s Dalmia Industrial Development Limited:- During the year the assessee received of Rs.1,45,00,000 as unsecured loan from the company. The A/R furnished loan confirmation, Balance sheet, Bank statement and copy of ITR acknowledgment. After perusal of records furnished

ITO, WARD-10(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MS SAVERA TOWERS 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. 2275/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ito, Ward-10(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Savera Towers Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aaocs 9744 C ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 12.03.2015 for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made towards share premium

SUBHDHAN FINANCIAL ADVISORY PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-9(4), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 2198/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Subhdhan Financial Advisory Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(4) Private Limited Vs C/O Sri Jitendra Kaushik, Advocate 19D, Muktaram Babu Street Kolkata - 700007 [Pan : Aamcs7818P] अपीलाथ"/ (Assessee ) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Fca Revenue By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/07/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 15, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 13/03/2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax(A) 15, Kolkata Is Arbitrary, Illegal & Bad In Law. 2. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) 15, Erred In Confirming The Action Of Income-Tax Officer Adding A Sum Of Rs.72,00,000/- Under Section 68 Of The I T Act 1961. 3. For That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter Or Amend Any Ground Before Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

section 68 of the Act for unexplained share premium is in dispute before us. We notice that during the year assessee issued 20000 equity shares at face value of Rs.10/- each and 4 I.T.A. No. 2198/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Subhdhan Financial Advisory Private Limited charged a premium of Rs.350/-per share and the same were subscribed

DCIT, C.C.-3(4), KOLKATA vs. M/S TANISHQUE TRADE LINK PVT. LTD, HOWRAH

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 17/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tanishque Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata Vs Bhabatarini Apartment G.T. Road, Room No. 602 Howrah - 711201 [Pan : Aacct7512R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, Fca Revenue By : Shri Biswanath Das, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/01/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 24/09/2020, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That On Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As In Facts In Allowing The Bogus Share Capital Raised In The Books Of The Assessee Without Appreciating The Fact That The Assessee Failed To Discharge Its Primary Onus To Prove & Establish The Identity & Creditworthiness Of The Investor Companies & Genuineness Of The Transaction. 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As In Facts In Ignoring That The Identity & Creditworthiness Of The Shareholders & Even The Genuineness Of The Transactions Remained Unexplained. 3. That On Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Invoking His Powers U/S. 250(4) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 In Directing The Assessing Officer To Make Further Enquiry & Report The Results Of The

section 68 without making aforesaid enquiry was not sustainable." In view of above factual and legal pronouncements, the ground is Allowed.” 11. From perusal of the finding of the ld. CIT(A) as well as the decisions referred therein and the factual matrix of the case, we notice that the ld. Assessing Officer carried out the assessment proceedings

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. SDR MEGHNATH INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

58 29.10.2011 The appellant during appeal, has furnished the Balance Sheet, Bank Statement and ITR of the source of source, even though, since the amendment to section 68

ITO, WARD - 6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. DHANKAMAL COMMOSAES PVT. LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 68 of the 1961 Act are also set aside. The questions of law are answered against the Revenue. No costs. Consequently, CMP No.9496 law are answered against the Revenue. No costs. Consequently, CMP No.9496 law are answered against the Revenue. No costs. Consequently, CMP No.9496 of 2017 is closed.” 4. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA vs. EDMOND FINVEST PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 68 of the Act is invoked if any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee for which the assessee either does not offer any explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not found to be satisfactory in the opinion of the Assessing Officer. In the given case

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

58,674/- 69,06,707/- 61,20,430/- 68,02,948/- 63,810/ 30,654/- income - Gross Total 3,27,2661- 1,13,194/- 5,01,814/- 0 0 0 0 Income Total Income 3,27,2701- 1,13,1901 5.01,8101- 0 0 0 0 Income @ 98,181/- 33,958/- 1,50,543/- 0 0 0 0 normal rates

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BURDWAN, BURDWAN vs. M/S. BARDHAMAN DHARMARAJ PAPER MILL PVT. LTD., BURDWAN

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year : 2015-16

section 68 to the credits not involving any receipt or inflow of cash in the relevant year . ITA No.910 & 1187/Kol/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 ACIT Cir-1/2 Bwn Vs. M/s Bardhaman Dharmaraj Paper Mill Pvt. Ltd. Page 12 Moreover, the view taken by the Tribunal in the said case is contrary to the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High