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

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

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 for the alleged sum and assessed the income at Rs.1,76,57,500/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). It was submitted by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) that the main object of the assessee-company is Real estate developments in various fields. The promoters

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.3,77,83

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

section 68 can be no different in respect of issue of share capital by closely held companies vis-a-vis loans or 9 Swift Vintrade Pvt. ltd., AY: 2009-10 gifts. The High Court in CIT v. Maithan International [2015] 375 ITR 123/231 Taxman 381156 taxmann.com ?83

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 12. Bachchi Finance Pvt. Ltd. Sl. Name Share letter before AO Balance Bank Statement

AMRITRASHI INFRA(P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.C.I.T.-4, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2012-13 Amritrashi Infra Private Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax- (Pan: Aakca2544E) 4, Kolkata.

68 of the Act, which view is a possible view as per law and cannot at any rate be classified as unsustainable in law. So according to Ld. AR, the order of second AO in respect of his view/satisfaction regarding share capital & premium is the result of specific direction of the First Ld. Pr. CIT, so doctrine of merger

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 :-

83,01,290/- --------------------------------------------------------------------- : ------------------------ Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) already initiated against the assessee. Assessed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Copy of the Order, Demand Notice & Challan issued to the assessee. 4. The A.O. made an addition of Rs.190 Crores u/s 68 of the Act, as unexplained cash credit. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter

ITO, WD-5(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SAYAJI MARKETING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result we set aside the order of the Ld

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 282/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Ito, Ward-5(2), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Sayaji Marketing Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aagcs 0147 M] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 39/Kol/2018 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No. 282/Kol/2014) Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S Sayaji Marketing Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aagcs 0147 M] (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

83,01,290/- --------------------------------------------------------------------- : ------------------------ Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) already initiated against the assessee. Assessed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Copy of the Order, Demand Notice &Challan issued to the assessee. 4. The A.O. made an addition of Rs.190 Crores u/s 68 of the Act, as unexplained cash credit. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter

M/S BRIDHI DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD.,AGRA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

68 of the Act could have even looked for the second source of the share capital & premium. In this assessment year (AY 2012-13) the onus on the assessee in respect of credit found in the books was confined to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the Source i.e. only the first source not the second source also

M/S EVAN VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,AGRA vs. PR, C.I.T.-4, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

68 of the Act of Rs. 20,41,00,000/- (share capital of Rs. 43,00,000/- and premium of Rs. 19,98,00,000/-). Thereafter, the First Ld. Pr.CIT-4, Kolkata issued SCN to the assessee-company dated 11.01.2016 conveying his intention to interdict in the First AO’ s action in framing the said original first assessment order dated

M/S. ARMAN ADVISORY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR. CIT-4, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am]

68 of the Act (hereinafter referred to as the first assessment order). This action of First AO, was interdicted by the First Ld. PCIT by exercising his revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act to set aside the first assessment order passed under section 143(3) dated 21.03.2015. However in his order (first revisional order) the Ld. PCIT (first

M/S GOODPOINT STOCKIST PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-4, KOLKATA

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

68 of the Act by order dated 16.03.2015 (hereinafter referred to as the first assessment order). This action of First AO, was interdicted by the First Ld. PCIT by exercising his revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act to set aside the first assessment order passed under section 143(3) dated 21.03.2015. However in his order (first revisional order

DEPUTY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(4),KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA vs. PCJ FINVEST PRIVATE LIMITED, SILIGURI, WEST BENGAL

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 68 of the\nAct by addition of proviso was made subsequent to previous year relevant to\nthe subject assessment year 2012-13 and cannot be invoked.\"\n7.6 Further, it has to be noted that in order to prove the creditworthiness of a\ncompany, it is not always necessary to look only for these investments to have been\nmade

DCIT, CENTRAL -4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAJESH AUTO MERCHANDISE PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 68 by proving the identity of the creditors by giving their complete addresses, GIR Nos./PAN\nas well as confirmations along with the copies of assessment orders of individual creditors wherever readily\navailable, cash credits could not be treated as non-genuine on the ground that summons issued to some of the\ncreditors could not be served

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

section 14A of the Act on account of expenses incurred to earn exempt income to Rs. 86,368/- in contravention of CBDT's Circular No. 5/2014 dated 11/02/2014?” 04. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income on 29.09.2015, declaring total loss of ₹10,22,220/-, which was selected for scrutiny under Computer

DEPUTY COMMISSOENR OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

section 14A of the Act on account of expenses incurred to earn exempt income to Rs. 86,368/- in contravention of CBDT's Circular No. 5/2014 dated 11/02/2014?” 04. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income on 29.09.2015, declaring total loss of ₹10,22,220/-, which was selected for scrutiny under Computer

SETHI FINMART (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-1, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12 Sethi Finmart (P) Ltd. Pr. Commissioner Of Income- C/O Subash Agarwal & Tax, Kolkata-1 Associates, Advocates, Vs. Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700 069. (Pan:Aaecs0188E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Sudipta Guha, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2022

83,76,790/- as income under section 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit and also the brokerage