SEEMA SUREKA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(3), KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

transfer under clause (via) or clause (vic) or clause (vich) or clause (vid) or clause (vii) of\nsection 47.\n\nExplanation.—For the purposes of this clause, “fair market value” of a property, being shares of a\ncompany not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, shall have the\nmeaning assigned to it in the Explanation

ACIT, CIR.-3(2), GANGTOK vs. M/S RODIC SIKKIM PROJECT PVT. LTD, EAST SIKKIM

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Years: 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Rodic Sikkim Project Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shanti Nagar, Singtam Income-Tax, Circle-3(2), Gangtok East Sikkim - 737134 (Pan: Aahcr1752J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/01/2023 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)- Siliguri Vide Appeal No. – 62/Cit(A)/Slg/2017-18 Dated 24/09/2020 For A.Y. 2015-16 Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Passed By Dcit, Circle – 3(2), Gangtok, Dated 30/12/2017. 2. The Grounds Taken By The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under:-

viib) of sub-section (2) of section 56 shall be the value, on the valuation date, of such unquoted equity shares as determined in the following manner under clause (a) or clause (b), at the option of the assessee, namely:— (a) the fair market value of unquoted equity shares = (A–L) × (PV), (PE) where, A = book value of the assets

DEEP JYOTI WAX TRADERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.6/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Deep Jyoti Wax Traders Pvt. Ltd.................................................……Appellant 157 Metal Market, Netaji Subhas Road, Bara Bazar, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aabcd4061C] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 17, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 10, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.11.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Sole Issue Raised By The Assessee Is Relating To The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Of Rs.1,16,65,600/- U/S 56(2) Of The Act On Account Of Excess Share Premium Received By The Assessee As Compared To The Fair Market Value Of The Shares. 3. The Assessee During The Year Issued 920000 Shares @10/- Each & Further Of Rs.40/- Each Raising Total Share Capital Including Share

price of the shares issued by the assessee at Rs.27.3/- per share and he further observed that the assessee had issued shares @ Rs.40/-. He added the differential amount of Rs.11665600/- u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Act. As per the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, the fair market value of the shares can be determined

ITO,WARD-8(2),KOL, KOLKATA vs. M/S. INDUS REALTY PVT. LTD. , KOLKATA.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

price is justified or not, it is for the businesses to take a call. Moreover, all the share applicants are group companies and hence situations may arise where funds are transferred from one to another depending upon their consolidated business strategy and outlook. In any case, while suspicion may arise that the transaction smacks of unaccounted money being circulated

ITO, WD-5(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S SAFELINE MARKETING PVT. LTD, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

section 68 of the Act, the Assessing Officer was justified in adding back the amounts to the income of the Assessee and the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing relief to the assessee. 7. That on the facts, in absence of verification, Ld. CIT(A) should have remanded the matter to A.O. for fresh verification. Thus, he has violated