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

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

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

77, N.S. Road, 5th Floor, Kolkata-700001 and (vi) M/s Brijbhumi Commosale Pvt. Ltd. at 70, Nalini Seth Road, 1st Floor, Kolkata-700005 got returned [un-served] by postal authority. Further according to AO field enquiry to verify the genuineness of these companies didn’t yield any result. Accordingly, the AO issued show-cause notice to the assessee company

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]

77, N.S. Road, 5th Floor, Kolkata-700001 and (vi) M/s Brijbhumi Commosale Pvt. Ltd. at 70, Nalini Seth Road, 1st Floor, Kolkata-700005 got returned [un-served] by postal authority. Further according to AO field enquiry to verify the genuineness of these companies didn’t yield any result. Accordingly, the AO issued show-cause notice to the assessee company

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

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

77, N.S. Road, 5th Floor, Kolkata-700001 and (vi) M/s Brijbhumi Commosale Pvt. Ltd. at 70, Nalini Seth Road, 1st Floor, Kolkata-700005 got returned [un-served] by postal authority. Further according to AO field enquiry to verify the genuineness of these companies didn’t yield any result. Accordingly, the AO issued show-cause notice to the assessee company

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

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

77, N.S. Road, 5th Floor, Kolkata-700001 and (vi) M/s Brijbhumi Commosale Pvt. Ltd. at 70, Nalini Seth Road, 1st Floor, Kolkata-700005 got returned [un-served] by postal authority. Further according to AO field enquiry to verify the genuineness of these companies didn’t yield any result. Accordingly, the AO issued show-cause notice to the assessee company

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

77 of the paper book to show that the closing balance in respect to the share application money already shown in the books of account is to the tune of Rs.1,74,50,000/- as on 31.03.2011 (AY 2011-12) which means that this amount was already in assessee’s hand as on 31.03.2011 i.e. the previous assessment year

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

77 taxmann.com 204 (Delhi) wherein it is held that where Commissioner (Appeals) based on details of net worth of share applicant companies, noticed that share applicants possessed substantial means to invest in assessee-investment company- no additons could be made under section 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

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. Similarly interest expenditure claimed in respect of alleged 28 parties amounting to Rs.42,19,262/- was also disallowed. Income assessed at Rs.3,77

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

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. GOLDEN GOENKA CREDIT PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

77,417/- u/s 68 by treating the said unsecured loans as bogus. On perusal of the assessment order, it is observed that the AO has raised the following issues while making the said addition and treating the said unsecured loans as bogus: a) The AO has referred to a bank statement of the lender companies of the assessee company

M/S SWIFT VINTRADE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. CIT, KOLKATA-1I, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10

77,12,000/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed a letter before the A.O. on 18.07.2011 stating that intimation u/s 143(1) had not been received and that income of Rs.50,000/- had not been shown in its return of income by mistake. The Assessing Officer, on receipt of this letter issued notice u/s.148 and subsequently, passed order u/s.147/143

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

section 68 was introduced from 1.4.2013, it was not applicable for the period relevant for the instant appeal. These were also produced before the AO as stated in the statement recorded u/s 131 on 13.03.2015 before the AO in response to Question No. 13” 3.5. We further find that ld. CIT(A) has also gone through the net worth

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]

77 (Cal) it has been held that burden lies upon the assessee to prove the noted three conditions. In CIT vs. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. (1994) 208 ITR 465 (Cal) 3 Positive Properties Pvt. Ltd., AY 2012-13 the Hon'ble High Court held that "it is for the assessee to prove the identity of the creditors, their creditworthiness

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]

77 (Cal) it has been held that burden lies upon the assessee to prove the noted three conditions. In CIT vs. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. (1994) 208 ITR 465 (Cal) the Hon'ble High Court held that "it is for the assessee to prove the 3 M/s. Gateway Enclave Pvt. Ltd., AY 2012-13 identity of the creditors, their creditworthiness

ITO, WARD-8(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S MANINYA COMFIN PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 79/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(1), M/S. Maninya Comfin Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Vs 9, Lal Bazar Street Lal Bazar Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcm5088N] अपीलाथ"/ (Assessee ) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vinod Kr. Jain, A/R Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/07/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/08/2023 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)-4, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 26/09/2018 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Made U/S. 68 Of Rs. 7,96,16,343/- On Account Of Unexplained Cash Credit In The Form Of Share Capital With Premium. 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Kol., Is Erred In Deleting The Addition Without Considering The Facts That The Source Of Fresh Share Capital Amount Was Not Properly Explained By The Assessee During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings & The Director Of The Assessee Company Did Not Appear Against Summon U/S. 131 To Substantiate The Claim Of The Assessee With Documentary Evidences. 3. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A), Failed To Appreciate That When The Sums Are Credited In The Books Of Accounts

section 68 of the I.T.Act, 1961, squarely applicable in this case with the perception of the Double Entry System of Accountancy. 6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made u/s. 68 of Rs. 6,85,77

INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S STANDARD LEATHER PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2010-11

77 has held that payment made for purchase of hides and skins is covered by Rule 6DD hence no disallowance can be made by applying provision of section 40A(3) of the Act. v) In ITO v. Kenaram N.Saha & Subhash Saha [2009] 116 ITD 1 (Kol- Trib.)(SB) it was held that the payment for purchase of hides