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

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

75 of paper book. iv) copy of share application Form (refer pages 88-89 of paper book) v) Photo copy of the bank statement is enclosed (refer pages 90-92 of paper book) vi) Certificate of source of fund (refer page 93 of paper book) 7. The Ld. AR drew our attention to page 87 of the paper book

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

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

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

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

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. MAA ANNAPURNA TRANSPORT AGENCY LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkery, Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

Section 68 of the Act. Therefore, we do not want to interfere in the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) which is confirmed and consequently the appeal of Revenue is dismissed. 25. Ground no. 2 of revenue is against the action of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.12,75

SATYANARAYAN HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(2), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.444/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13

68 of the Income Tax Act 1961. Consequently, the question is answered in the negative. The decision of the Tribunal is correct in law" 31. The case on hand clearly falls in the category where there is lack of enquiry on the part of the A. O. as in the case of Ganjeshwari Metals (supra). Page 13 of 21 I.T.A

ITO, WARD-14(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PANSU COMMERCIAL PVT. 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.1859/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

68 of the I.T. Act, holding the view of double taxation in the hands of assessee company as well as in the hands of five paper companies in the light of decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Trinetra Commerce & Trade (P) Ltd., 75 taxmann. Com 70 (dt. of order 15.09.2016) 3. That the Department craves

ITO, WARD-10(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S DREAMZ MET CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 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. 2047/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ito, Ward-10(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Dreamz Met Construction Projects Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aagcm 2068 R ] (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 first issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in deleting the addition made in the sum of Rs 2,70,75,000/- towards share premium u/s 68

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

section 68 of the Act. The relevant finding of this Tribunal reads as under:- “6. With the assistance of ld. Representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. A perusal of the record would indicate that four Group Companies, who have sufficient net worth has made the investment with the assessee. The following table will depict the position

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]

75,37,998/- 17,50,000/- Total 1,40,50,000/- On perusal of the aforesaid chart it reveals that the net owned funds of each share applicant were several times more than the investment made in equity of the assessee. It is evident that each share applicant had substantial resources of their own compared with the total investible funds

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

75,00,000/- were received from various share applicants to whom equity share allotted against share premium (face value being Rs. 100/- per share). The case of the appellant was selected for scrutiny through CASS. The appellant duly complied with one notice issued by the AO. Complete details of shares of the allottee were duly furnished along with the relevant

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

68 of the Act. Fortunately, for the assessee, CIT(A) has done an elaborate factual exercise, took into consideration, the creditworthiness of the 13 companies the details of which were furnished by the assessee. More importantly, the CIT noted that all these companies responded to the notices issued under Section 133 (6) of the Act which fact

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