DCIT, CIR.-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S JAGANNATH BANWARILAL TEXOFABS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

76,909.-. Later, the case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued upon the assessee, which were duly complied with. From the details furnished the AO noted that the assessee company had raised capital against allotment of equity shares during the year. In this regard the AO sought details concerning correspondence made for share application, trade license/professional

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 SANMIN TRADING & HOLDING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-9(4), KOLKATA

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

68 of the Act on the ground that the share capital received is seen not a genuine credit. All the grounds of the additions have been summarised by the AO at para 3.17 of the assessment order. These are extracted for ready reference: “3.17 The facts of the case and the legal position is summarized as follows: 2 I.T.A

RAHUL AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-46, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17

68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred to as the ’Act’) . 4. Brief facts of the case as noted by the AO are that the assessee is an individual, had filed his e- return of income disclosing total income of Rs. 21,96,040/-. Later on his case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and after serving

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]

68 is concerned, the nature of the transactions and the entries clearly show that no cash, in fact, flowed. It was fiirther stressed that the transactions are above board. No outsider is involved. The entries were made in the books of the concerns of the same group. The shares in question were also of the companies of the group. There

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

76,57,500/- completed the assessment making addition under section 68 of the Act for the alleged sum and assessed

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 cash credit does not attract. The detailed findings of the Hon`ble Court is given below: “We have perused the assessment order carefully. We find that cash did not pass at any stage though entries were made in the cash book showing payments and receipts; but since the entries made a complete round, no passing of cash was necessary

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

68 of the Act for the alleged unexplained cash credit of Rs. 6.52 Crore received by the assessee towards share capital and share premium. Ld. AO also made disallowance u/s 14A of the Act of Rs. 1,02,350/- observing that the assessee had made investments in equity shares. Income assessed at Rs. 6,53,76,770/-. 4. Aggrieved

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

76,486/- added under section 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit. 4. Aggrieved with the assessment order

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 in the case of this cash creditor. 9(b). Anju Chowdhury- Rs.20,00,000/- While going through the pages from 64 to 76

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

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

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

sections 76 and 78 of the Evidence Act. of the Evidence Act. 22. In our view, the effect and import of the transactions is that th 22. In our view, the effect and import of the transactions is that th 22. In our view, the effect and import of the transactions is that the assessee took over the liability

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

68 of the Act. In the ld. CIT(A)’s order we find that the details of share allotment, the moneys received in the form of share application money/premium and ld. CIT(A) has mentioned by preparing chart in this context as under: “SDR MEGHNATH INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. DETAILS OF SHARE ALLOTMENT DURING F.Y. 2011-12 FACE VALUE OF SHARES

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, the nature and source of credit in the books of the appellant company has been duly explained by the appellant. The credit is in the form of receipt of loan from the creditors. The nature of receipt towards loan is well established from the entries passed in the respective balance sheets of the companies as loans