“ investigation wing ”

ITO, 19(3) (4) Mumbai v. Shamim M Bharwani

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 are invalid if the Assessing Officer records satisfaction based on borrowed satisfaction or information without independently applying their mind and forming their own 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment. The AO must arrive at an independent conclusion, not merely act on a report from an investigation wing without due diligence.

69 Taxmann.com 65 · 2016 · Reported

142

1. Harikishan S. Virmani v. DCIT

Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) from penny stock transactions are liable to be treated as bogus and added back under Section 68 as unexplained cash credits, especially when evidence suggests the involvement of entry operators providing accommodation entries.

394 ITR 146 · 2017 · High Court

PCIT v. M/s. Kesoram Industries 57

Reassessment proceedings under section 147 cannot be initiated by the Assessing Officer based on borrowed satisfaction, vague information from the Investigation Wing, or incorrect jurisdictional facts without independent application of mind. Reopening beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, especially where an original assessment was completed under section 143(3), requires specific conditions relating to the assessee's failure to disclose material facts.

417 ITR 334 · 2019 · High Court

ITO v. Purushottam Das Bangur

An assessment completed under Section 143(3) cannot be reopened after four years solely based on third-party information or opinions, such as from an Investigation Wing, without the Assessing Officer applying their own independent mind to the material and having new, independent material on record.

224 ITR 362 · 1997 · Supreme Court

AGR Investment v. Additional Commissioner

Information received from the investigation wing constitutes valid 'reason to believe' for initiating reassessment proceedings under Sections 147/148, provided the Assessing Officer applies their mind to the material and does not act mechanically. Prompt issuance of a notice based on such information does not automatically imply a lack of due diligence or borrowed satisfaction.

197 Taxmann 177 · 2011 · High Court

56 (Guj.) (para 6) v. Aaspas Multimedia Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

A reassessment under Section 147/148 is valid if initiated based on specific, non-vague information, even from an investigation wing, provided the Assessing Officer applies independent mind to form a 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment.

83 Taxmann.com 82 · 2017 · High Court

Aradhna Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT

Information received from the Investigation Wing, identifying the assessee as a beneficiary of accommodation entries through share application from a third party, constitutes valid tangible material and 'reasons to believe' for initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.

91 Taxmann.com 119 · 2018 · High Court

ITA 817/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

The Assessing Officer is justified in reopening assessment proceedings based on information received from the Investigation Wing, even when recording findings also rely on documents already on record, provided all procedural requirements for reassessment are met.

Judgments citing investigation wing

Balram Gupta, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 10(3), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S.Jhajharia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kalyan Nath, Addl. CIT

ITA 634/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

specific to any assessee. The assessee was not confronted with any statement or material alleged to be the basis of the report of the Investigation Wing of the department and which were the basis on which conclusion were drawn against the assessee. Copy of the report was also not given

Smt. Alka Changoiwala, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 34(2), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D.Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kalyan Nath, Addl. CIT

ITA 521/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Santosh Choraria, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(3), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Santosh Choraria………………...……………...........…………..………………………………..….…….........Appellant 408, Marshall House Flat-413 25, Strand Road Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Acdpc 1830 F] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-36(3), Kolkata..……………………………………………..…..............Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P.K. Mondal, Addl. Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 24Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 5Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 10, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 12Th February, 2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Sole Issue That Arises For My Adjudication Is Whether The Assessing Officer Was Right In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee That He Had Earned Long Term Capital Gains On Purchase & Sale Of The Shares Of M/S. Essar India Ltd. The Ao Based On A General Report & Modus Operandi Adopted Generally In These Cases & On General Observations Has Concluded That The Assessee Has Claimed Bogus Long Term Capital Gain. He Made An Addition Of The Entire Sale Proceeds Of The Shares As Income & Rejected The Claim Of Exemption Made U/S 10(38) Of The Act. The Evidence Produced By The Assessee In Support Of The Genuineness Of The Transaction Was Rejected.

ITA 387/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Kamala Devi Mohta, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 45(3), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kamala Debi Mohta………………..…………...........…………..………………………………..….…….........Appellant Flat-1A Floors Castlake District 74, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad Road Phoolbagan Kolkata – 700 054 [Pan : Adqpm 9713 M] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-45(3), Kolkata..……………………………………………..…..............Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.L. Kocchar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P.K. Mondal, Addl. Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 24Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 5Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 13, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 30Th November, 2017, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Sole Issue That Arises For My Adjudication Is Whether The Assessing Officer Was Right In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee That He Had Earned Long Term Capital Gains On Purchase & Sale Of The Shares Of M/S. Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. The Ao Based On A General Report & Modus Operandi Adopted Generally In These Cases & On General Observations Has Concluded That The Assessee Has Claimed Bogus Long Term Capital Gain. He Made An Addition Of The Entire Sale Proceeds Of The Shares As Income & Rejected The Claim Of Exemption Made U/S 10(38) Of The Act. The Evidence Produced By The Assessee In Support Of The Genuineness Of The Transaction Was Rejected.

ITA 239/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Sonal Bajaj, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(2), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mandal, Addl. CIT

ITA 1404/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Harish Kumar Jain, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 34(3), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2014-15 Harish Kumar Jain -Versus- I.T.O., Ward-34(3), Kolkata Kolkata (Pan: Acspj 6317 R) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, Fca & Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate For The Respondent: Shri Piyush Mukherjee, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.10.2018 Order Per J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-(A)-10, Kolkata Dated 24.05.2018 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act ‘) Relating To A.Y. 2014-15. 2. The Sole Issue That Arises For My Adjudication Is Whether The Assessing Officer Was Right In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee That He Had Earned Long Term Capital Gains On Purchase & Sale Of The Shares Of M/S Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. The Ao Based On A General Report & Modus Operandi Adopted Generally In These Cases & On General Observations Has Concluded That The Assessee Has Claimed Bogus Long Term Capital Gain. He Made An Addition Of The Entire Sale Proceeds Of The Shares As Income & Rejected The Claim Of Exemption Made U/S 10(38) Of The Act. The Evidence Produced By The Assessee In Support Of The Genuineness Of The Transaction Was Rejected.

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCA & Shri Amit Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Mukherjee, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

ITA 1403/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Smt. Bina Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 34(1), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Bina Agarwal -Versus- I.T.O., Ward-34(1), Kolkata Kolkata (Pan: Acgpa 6318 K) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate For The Respondent: Shri Piyush Mukherjee, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.10.2018 Order Per J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-(A)-10, Kolkata Dated 25.04.2018 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act ‘) Relating To A.Y. 2014-15. 2. The Sole Issue That Arises For My Adjudication Is Whether The Assessing Officer Was Right In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee That He Had Earned Long Term Capital Gains On Purchase & Sale Of The Shares Of M/S Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. The Ao Based On A General Report & Modus Operandi Adopted Generally In These Cases & On General Observations Has Concluded That The Assessee Has Claimed Bogus Long Term Capital Gain. He Made An Addition Of The Entire Sale Proceeds Of The Shares As Income & Rejected The Claim Of Exemption Made U/S 10(38) Of The Act. The Evidence Produced By The Assessee In Support Of The Genuineness Of The Transaction Was Rejected.

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Mukherjee, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

ITA 1395/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Suman Saraf, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(2), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, JCIT

ITA 1394/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Jignesh Desai, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 35(2), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D.Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, JCIT

ITA 1392/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Rishabh Jain, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(1), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, JCIT

ITA 1388/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Smt. Pushpa Devi Chopra, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 35(1), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Pushpa Devi Chopra -Versus- I.T.O., Ward-35(1), Kolkata Kolkata (Pan: Acapc 5615 K) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar For The Respondent: Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.10.2018 Order Per J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-(A)-10, Kolkata Dated 18.05.2018 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act ‘) Relating To A.Y. 2014-15. 2. The Sole Issue That Arises For My Adjudication Is Whether The Assessing Officer Was Right In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee That He Had Earned Long Term Capital Gains On Purchase & Sale Of The Shares Of M/S Srk Industries Ltd. The Ao Based On A General Report & Modus Operandi Adopted Generally In These Cases & On General Observations Has Concluded That The Assessee Has Claimed Bogus Long Term Capital Gain. He Made An Addition Of The Entire Sale Proceeds Of The Shares As Income & Rejected The Claim Of Exemption Made U/S 10(38) Of The Act. The Evidence Produced By The Assessee In Support Of The Genuineness Of The Transaction Was Rejected.

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. CIT

ITA 1387/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Smt. Sampat Devi Chopra, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(3), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Sampat Devi Chopra -Versus- I.T.O., Ward-36(3), Kolkata Kolkata (Pan: Acapc 5616 L) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar For The Respondent: Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.10.2018 Order Per J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-(A)-10, Kolkata Dated 31.05.2018 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act ‘) Relating To A.Y. 2014-15. 2. The Sole Issue That Arises For My Adjudication Is Whether The Assessing Officer Was Right In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee That He Had Earned Long Term Capital Gains On Purchase & Sale Of The Shares Of M/S Srk Industries Ltd. The Ao Based On A General Report & Modus Operandi Adopted Generally In These Cases & On General Observations Has Concluded That The Assessee Has Claimed Bogus Long Term Capital Gain. He Made An Addition Of The Entire Sale Proceeds Of The Shares As Income & Rejected The Claim Of Exemption Made U/S 10(38) Of The Act. The Evidence Produced By The Assessee In Support Of The Genuineness Of The Transaction Was Rejected.

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. CIT

ITA 1386/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Smt. Snehlata Chopra, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(2), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Snehlata Chopra -Versus- I.T.O., Ward-36(2), Kolkata Kolkata (Pan: Acapc 5616 L) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar For The Respondent: Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.10.2018 Order Per J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-(A)-10, Kolkata Dated 18.05.2018 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act ‘) Relating To A.Y. 2014-15. 2. The Sole Issue That Arises For My Adjudication Is Whether The Assessing Officer Was Right In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee That He Had Earned Long Term Capital Gains On Purchase & Sale Of The Shares Of M/S Srk Industries Ltd. The Ao Based On A General Report & Modus Operandi Adopted Generally In These Cases & On General Observations Has Concluded That The Assessee Has Claimed Bogus Long Term Capital Gain. He Made An Addition Of The Entire Sale Proceeds Of The Shares As Income & Rejected The Claim Of Exemption Made U/S 10(38) Of The Act. The Evidence Produced By The Assessee In Support Of The Genuineness Of The Transaction Was Rejected.

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. CIT

ITA 1384/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Keshar Dhanania, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward - 46(4), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2014-15 Keshar Dhanania -Versus- I.T.O., Ward-46(4), Howrah Kolkata (Pan: Afppd 4295 J) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant: Shri S.S. Gupta, Fca For The Respondent: Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.10.2018 Order

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. CIT

ITA 1383/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Rajesh Kumar Dhanania, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward - 46(4), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2014-15 Rajesh Kumar Dhanania -Versus- I.T.O., Ward-46(4), Howrah Kolkata (Pan: Advpd 0356 J) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant: Shri S.S. Gupta, Fca For The Respondent: Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.10.2018 Order

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. CIT

ITA 1382/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Rajesh Kumar Dhanania (HUF), Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 48(1), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2014-15 Rajesh Kumar Dhanania (Huf) -Versus- I.T.O., Ward-48(1), Howrah Kolkata (Pan: Aahhr 6232 E) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant: Shri S.S. Gupta, Fca For The Respondent: Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.10.2018 Order

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. CIT

ITA 1381/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Nidhi Dhanania, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward - 46(4), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2014-15 Nidhi Dhanania -Versus- I.T.O., Ward-46(4), Howrah Kolkata (Pan: Bhapd 8643 J) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant: Shri S.S. Gupta, Fca For The Respondent: Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.10.2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-(A)-14, Kolkata Dated 18.05.2018 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act ‘) Relating To A.Y. 2014-15. 2. The Sole Issue That Arises For My Adjudication Is Whether The Assessing Officer Was Right In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee That He Had Earned Long Term Capital Gains On Purchase & Sale Of The Shares Of M/S Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. The Ao Based On A General Report & Modus Operandi Adopted Generally In These Cases & On General Observations Has Concluded That The Assessee Has Claimed Bogus Long Term Capital Gain. He Made An Addition Of The Entire Sale Proceeds Of The Shares As Income & Rejected The Claim Of Exemption Made U/S 10(38) Of The Act. The Evidence Produced By The Assessee In Support Of The Genuineness Of The Transaction Was Rejected.

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. CIT

ITA 1380/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Ram Pratap Dhanania, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward - 46(4), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ram Pratap Dhanania -Versus- I.T.O., Ward-46(4), Howrah Kolkata (Pan: Adnpd 2089 C) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant: Shri S.S. Gupta, Fca For The Respondent: Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.10.2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-(A)-14, Kolkata Dated 21.05.2018 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act ‘) Relating To A.Y. 2014-15. 2. The Sole Issue That Arises For My Adjudication Is Whether The Assessing Officer Was Right In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee That He Had Earned Long Term Capital Gains On Purchase & Sale Of The Shares Of M/S Kailash Auto Finance Ltd.. The Ao Based On A General Report & Modus Operandi Adopted Generally In These Cases & On General Observations Has Concluded That The Assessee Has Claimed Bogus Long Term Capital Gain. He Made An Addition Of The Entire Sale Proceeds Of The Shares As Income & Rejected The Claim Of Exemption Made U/S 10(38) Of The Act. The Evidence Produced By The Assessee In Support Of The Genuineness Of The Transaction Was Rejected.

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. CIT

Section 10(38)Section 14ASection 250

Nirmala Dhanania, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward - 46(4), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1379/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2014-15 Nirmala Dhanania -Versus- I.T.O., Ward-46(4), Howrah Kolkata (Pan: Adgpd 0724 M) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant: Shri S.S. Gupta, Fca For The Respondent: Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.10.2018 Order Per J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-(A)-14, Kolkata Dated 18.05.2018 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act ‘) Relating To A.Y. 2014-15. 2. The Sole Issue That Arises For My Adjudication Is Whether The Assessing Officer Was Right In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee That He Had Earned Long Term Capital Gains On Purchase & Sale Of The Shares Of M/S Kailash Auto Finance Ltd.. The Ao Based On A General Report & Modus Operandi Adopted Generally In These Cases & On General Observations Has Concluded That The Assessee Has Claimed Bogus Long Term Capital Gain. He Made An Addition Of The Entire Sale Proceeds Of The Shares As Income & Rejected The Claim Of Exemption Made U/S 10(38) Of The Act. The Evidence Produced By The Assessee In Support Of The Genuineness Of The Transaction Was Rejected.

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. CIT

ITA 1269/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Rekha Devi, Siliguri vs. ITO, Ward - 2(2), Siliguri

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Rekha Devi…………………………...……………...........…………..………………………………..….…….........Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane 2Nd Floor Suite-213 Kolkata – 700 069 [Pan : Aclpd 5130 D] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Siliguri…..……………………………………………..…..............Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 25Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 5Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - Siliguri, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 9Th April, 2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Sole Issue That Arises For My Adjudication Is Whether The Assessing Officer Was Right In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee That He Had Earned Long Term Capital Gains On Purchase & Sale Of The Shares Of M/S. Unno Industries Limited. The Ao Based On A General Report & Modus Operandi Adopted Generally In These Cases & On General Observations Has Concluded That The Assessee Has Claimed Bogus Long Term Capital Gain. He Made An Addition Of The Entire Sale Proceeds Of The Shares As Income & Rejected The Claim Of Exemption Made U/S 10(38) Of The Act. The Evidence Produced By The Assessee In Support Of The Genuineness Of The Transaction Was Rejected.