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

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

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

94,08,607/- and had shown profit before tax Rs. 50,13,255/- and paid income tax of Rs. 14,50,450/- and has disbursed advance against property of Rs. 10,49,79,327/- (refer page- 31 of P.B). The Ld. AR also drew our attention to page-52, which is a copy of loan confirmation of accounts given/issued

DCIT, CIRCLE-2, , ASANSOL vs. M/S. DIAMOND BOTTLING PLANT COMPANY, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, V.P & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.894/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit, Circle-2, Asansol Vs. M/S Diamond Bottling Plant Company C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Seven Brothers Lodge, P.O-Buroshibtala, P.S- Chinsurah, Hooghly, - 712105. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefd5674R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Sr. Dr Respondent By : Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 11/12/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Asansol Dated 30.01.2019 Passed In Case No.58/Cit(A)/Asl/Dcit/Cir-2/Asl/15-16 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Grievance Seeks To Revive Assessing Officer’S Action Treating Assessee’S Loans Of Rs.11,85,00,000/- As Unexplained Cash Credits U/S 68 Which Has Been Reversed To The Extent Of Rs.5,26,50,251/- In The Cit(A)’S Order. Its Case Accordingly Is That The Assessing Officer Had Rightly Added The Assessee’S Total Loan Amount Of Rs. 11,85,00,000/- Raised From Four Entities M/S Diamond Carbon Pvt. Ltd., M/S Mukherjee Capital Pvt. Ltd., M/S Wimper Trading & Distributors Pvt. Ltd. & M/S Mukherjee Farms Pvt. Ltd.

94,724/- is allowed in respect of the loan of Rs.l,20,00,000/- received by the appellant from M/s Mukherjee Capital Pvt. Ltd.” 9. In order to substantiate the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction in respect of M/s. DCPL the Ld. AR brought to our attention that for AY 2014-15, the said company was assessed

BALAKA VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 160 & 161/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), 9/12, Lal Bazar Street Vs Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcb2610B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R & Saurav Gupta, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Instant Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”). Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 29/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act & Ita No. 161/Kol/2023, Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 28/11/2023, Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act, For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds In Both These Appeals, But The Effective Issue Raised In Ita No. 161/Kol/2024 Is Against The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act For Unexplained Share Capital Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) & In Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Addition Made

94,00,000/- including share premium of Rs. 13,24,30,000/- received by the assessee during the year was added to the total income of the assessee as 'unexplained cash credit' introduced in the books of the assessee as per the provisions of section 68 of the Act.” 4. Aggrieved the assessee preferred appeal before

BALAKA VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 160 & 161/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), 9/12, Lal Bazar Street Vs Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcb2610B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R & Saurav Gupta, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Instant Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”). Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 29/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act & Ita No. 161/Kol/2023, Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 28/11/2023, Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act, For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds In Both These Appeals, But The Effective Issue Raised In Ita No. 161/Kol/2024 Is Against The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act For Unexplained Share Capital Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) & In Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Addition Made

94,00,000/- including share premium of Rs. 13,24,30,000/- received by the assessee during the year was added to the total income of the assessee as 'unexplained cash credit' introduced in the books of the assessee as per the provisions of section 68 of the Act.” 4. Aggrieved the assessee preferred appeal before

ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S VISHNU DISTRIBUTORS PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is devoid of any merit, hence dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 50/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-2013

section 68 in the context of the facts of the case. The assessing officer issued notices u/s 133(6) 14 share subscribers, calling for certain evidences, among which were: (i)copy of share application Form and also copy of share allotment letter. (ii)details of shares that have been allotted with distinctive nos. of shares. (iii)name address

DCIT, CC-2(4), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA vs. NARSINGH ISPAT LIMITED. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

section 68 of the Act. 5. The ld. D/R, submitted that the assessee company had entered into a sham transaction with the investor to introduce the unaccounted income in form of share application/allotment. He further submitted that, the assessee company did not have any regular business transaction or regular acquaintance with the investor and such huge amount of investments

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 68 of the Act cannot be invoked. The case of the assessee also find support from the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court 7 I.T.A. No. 80/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s Merrit Fintrade Pvt. Ltd. in the case of V. R. Global Energy Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO in 407 ITR 145 (Mad). Similar ratio has been

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

Section 68 of the Act and consequently disallowing the corresponding interest expenditure of Rs. 1,94,958/-. In order to understand issue under consideration, it would be appropriate to bring on record the facts of the case in brief. The appellant is a non- banking financial company. In the course of its business, the appellant receives inter-corporate deposits

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

7). the Assessing Officer is duty-bound to investigate the creditworthiness of the creditor/subscriber the genuineness of the transaction and the veracity of the repudiation.”\nThe revenue appeal against the above order was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dt. 21st Jan 2008 dismissed the SLP and held that if the share application money is received

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)

94,65,886 ZIWANI BARTER PVT LTD 30,00,000 36,56,71,889 JPRECHHA COMMERCIALS PVT LTD 20,00,000 5,07,00,999 TRAMMEL TRADING PVT LTD 30,00,000 35,07,76,604 BACHCHI FINANCE PVT LTD 20,00,000 19,09,58,640 JP ENGINEERING CORPN

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LITTLESTAR SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

7,8,11,12,13,15, and 16 of Table 2 above)\n(i)\nIn the case of these 8 investors scrutiny assessments u/s 143(3) of the\nAct for the AY under consideration, that is, AY 2012-13 have been completed\nand following additions have been made to their Total Income wrt share\napplication moneys received on high premium

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. BMS SALES PVT. LTD., ,PURULIA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 68 of the Act are\nnot applicable to the sale of investment made by the assessee in the\nimpugned assessment year. In defense of his argument the Id. AR\nrelied on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of in\nthe case of PCIT Vs. Tulsyan and Sons (P.) Ltd.ITAT/239/2024 in IA\nNo.GA/2/2024order

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

68 to the tune of Rs. 18,27,00,000/- stands deleted. In the result the grounds are partly allowed.” 06. The ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by following the decision of the co-ordinate bench in case of M/s Swarna Kalash Commercial Pvt. ltd. Vs. ACIT in IT(SS)A No. 53/KOL/2022

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

68 to the tune of Rs. 18,27,00,000/- stands deleted. In the result the grounds are partly allowed.” 06. The ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by following the decision of the co-ordinate bench in case of M/s Swarna Kalash Commercial Pvt. ltd. Vs. ACIT in IT(SS)A No. 53/KOL/2022