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

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

BHUTORIA ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 7(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A. No. 2024/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

65,500 310, 41A, AJC Bose Road Kolkata-700017 Total 4,14,80,500 6. The Ld. AR drew our attention to the aforesaid chart and pointed out that though the aforesaid share applicants are eight in numbers actually there is only seven share subscribers because the Escorts Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. has been cited twice at serial

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

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

65,15,000/- Dealcomm Ltd 86800 8,68,000/- 13,02,000/- 21,70,000/- Shubham Buildwell (P) Ltd 1,76,85,000/- Grand Total 70,74,000/- 1,06,11,000/- 6 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 M/s. Wisley Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. 8. We further notice that the impugned addition has been made under section

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, in respect of share capital and security premium received from certain companies/persons in spite of fact that appellant has substantiated the transaction before the Ld. AO by proving the identity of the concerned parties, their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transaction and even proved the source of source of amount given

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 for the following reasons given in his impugned order:- “On careful consideration of the contentions of the A/R of the appellant, it is Inferred therefrom that, firstly, an objection was raised regarding non-appearance of the directors of all the 13 companies before the A.O in response to summons issued u/s 131 of the I.T. Act that

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 for the following reasons given in his impugned order:- “On careful consideration of the contentions of the A/R of the appellant, it is Inferred therefrom that, firstly, an objection was raised regarding non-appearance of the directors of all the 13 companies before the A.O in response to summons issued u/s 131 of the I.T. Act that

ITO, WARD-10(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S POSITIVE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

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

65 (Cal) / 375 ITR 123 (Cal) has examined the decision of M/s. Lovely Exports Ltd. and has expressed the view which is reproduced as under: "This reasoning must apply a portion to large scale subscriptions to the shares of a public company where the latter may have no material other than the application forms and bank transaction details to give

ITO, WARD-10(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S GATEWAY ENCLAVE PVT.LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

65,832/- 7,00,000/- Subhbijay Agencies (P) Ltd. 45,62,16,492/- 11,00,000/- Superior Enclave (P) Ltd. 2,50,70,945/- 25,00,000/- Topaz Enclave (P) Ltd. 2,50,25,132/- 49,00,000/- Toplake Commercial (P) Ltd. 49,48,01,760/- 2,50,000/- Total 1,25,50,000/- On perusal of the aforesaid chart

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SOMANI SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

Bench: the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata.

68. 3. That the revenue reserves its rights to substantiate, modify, delete supplement and/or alter any or all grounds of appeal at any the time of appeal proceedings.” 3. Before us the Ld. DR assailed the action of Ld. CIT(A) by stating that the assessee could not conclusively demonstrate the kind of good financials that could have attracted

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SOMANI SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

Bench: the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata.

68. 3. That the revenue reserves its rights to substantiate, modify, delete supplement and/or alter any or all grounds of appeal at any the time of appeal proceedings.” 3. Before us the Ld. DR assailed the action of Ld. CIT(A) by stating that the assessee could not conclusively demonstrate the kind of good financials that could have attracted

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AVIMA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) in respect of bogus unsecured loans.\n2.1. The facts in brief are that the assessee company is a flagship company of 'Avima Group' and is in the business of trading in jute items. The assessee filed the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on 30.09.2016, declaring total income

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

68, the Assessing Officer was justified in adding back the amounts to the assessee's income. [Para 15]” 13. We now proceed to decide the appeal. I.T.A. No.: 724/KOL/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Navansh Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. 14. Ground nos. 1 and 10 being general in nature do not require any separate adjudication. 15. Ground no. 2 is regarding

KAJAL KUMAR ROY,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD - 1(4), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M. Jagtap] I.T.A. No. 1568/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Kajal Kumar Roy.............................…………………………………………Appellant C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, “Seven Brothers”, Lodge, Buroshibtala, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 105 [Pan : Adgprs 8137 G] Income Tax Officer...................……………………………………………….......Respondent Ward 1(4), Hooghly Aayakar Bhawan, G.T. Road Khadina More, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 101 Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Satyajit Mondal, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 31, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 22, 2017 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 6, Kolkata Dated 20.04.2017 & The Solitary Issue Involved Therein Relates To The Addition Of Rs. 13,03,000/- Made By The A.O. & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit (A) On Account Of Loans Taken By The Assessee From Four Parties By Treating The Same As Unexplained Cash Credits Under Section 68. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual Who Is Engaged In The Business Of Trading Of Potatos. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed By Him On 25.09.2011 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 10,92,457/- Including Agricultural Income Of Rs.

section 68 of the Act to prove the genuineness of transactions which had been done by way of account payee cheques and the creditworthiness and identity of the loan creditors. Moreover, the loan creditors appeared before the AO in response summons u/s 131 of the Act and confirmed the transactions. The 10 I.T.A. No. 1568/Kol/2017 A.Y. 2011-12 Kajal

M/S ADVENT COMMODITIES PVT. LTD.,ITO, WARD-4(3) vs. ITO, WARD-4(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

68 of the Act. The fresh share capital issued and subscribed to the extent of this value of share of ₹10/- was accepted as genuine by the AO and no addition made. The assessee carried the matter in appeal. 2.2. The first appellate authority called for a remand report. During the remand proceedings, fresh summons were issued to the share

ITO, WD-5(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BLESSING COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result we set aside the order of the Ld

Bench: Hon‟Ble Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 271/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 I.T.O., Ward-5(3), Kolkata -Vs.- M/S. Blessings Commercial Pvt. Ltd. 228A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aaccb 1349 N] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Goulen Hangshing, Cit, Dr. For The Respondent : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2017 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Vi, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Dt. 19/11/2013, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The „Act‟), Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Facts In Brief:- The Assessee Is A Company & Is Engaged In The Business Of Finance & Investment. It Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011-12 On 22/09/2010, Declaring –Nil- Income. It Showed A Loss Of Rs.668/-. The Facts As Recorded By The Assessing Officer In The Assessment Order Are Extracted Below:- “Para 1.2.1 The Assessee Has Shown Receipt Of Under Mentioned Share Capital Of Rs.1,90,00,000/- & Share Premium Of Rs.188,10,00,000/- During The Asst. Year 2010-11. The Assessee Credited Rs.1,90,00,000/- In Total In Its Books Against The Above Receipts. The Assessee Claimed That The Detail Of Receipts Are As Under :-

65,00,00,000 (See Note -1 below) 3 Stephens Financial Services 600000 60,00,000 59,40,00,000 60,00,00,000 Pvt. Ltd. 19000000 19,00,00,000 188,10,00,000 190,00,00,000 Note – 1 : Although the assessee has shown receipt of Rs.65 Crore as share application money from M/s Sayaji Marketing