PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9, KOLKATA vs. SHRI AJAY KUMAR SHAW

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam

condonation of delay is allowed. 2 Re.: ITAT 53 of 2020 This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, for brevity) is directed against the order dated 26th June, 2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench ‘SMC’ Kolkata in ITA No. 2685/Kol/2018 for the assessment year

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central 2, Kolkata vs. MS A P Fashion Pvt Ltd

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ,HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

delay is condoned. The application being GA/1/2025 is allowed. Learned counsel for the appellant suggests the following substantial questions of law: 2 “(a) Whether in facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in law by not considering the fact that the assessee company has made purchase transaction amounting to Rs.84

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S BRIDGE AND BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO PVT LTD

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Dated : November 28, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Om Narayan Rai, Adv. Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. …For Appellant The Court :- We Have Heard Learned Standing Counsel For The Appellant Mr. Prithu Dudhoria & Mr. Om Narayan Rai. Notice On The Respondent Has Been Served & The Same Has Returned With The Postal Endorsement “Unclaimed” Which Is Deemed To Be Proper Service. We Have Perused Affidavit Filed In Support Of The Petition & Found Sufficient Cause Has Been Shown For Not Being Able To Prefer The Appeal Within The Period Of Limitation. Hence, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned. The Petition Stands Allowed.

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The petition stands allowed. 2 This appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act for brevity) is directed against the order dated December 23, 2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench Kolkata in I.T.A. Nos. 375 & 534/Kol/2018 relating to the Assessment Year

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S BRIDGE AND BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO PVT LTD

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Dated : November 28, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. …For Appellant The Court :- We Have Heard Learned Standing Counsel For The Appellant Mr. Prithu Dudhoria. Notice On The Respondent Has Been Served & The Same Has Been Returned With The Postal Endorsement “Unclaimed” Which Is Deemed To Be Proper Service. We Have Perused Affidavit Filed In Support Of The Petition & Found Sufficient Cause Has Been Shown For Not Being Able To Prefer The Appeal Within The Period Of Limitation. Hence, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned. The Petition Stands Allowed. This Appeal Has Been Filed Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated December 23, 2021 Passed

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The petition stands allowed. This appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act for brevity) is directed against the order dated December 23, 2021 passed 2 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench Kolkata in I.T.A. Nos. 374 & 533/Kol/2018 relating to the Assessment Year

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. R C SUPPLIERS PVT LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

Bench: :

purchase of the said scrip by the assessee was managed and fabricated to claim bogus loss ? We have heard Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue. Though notice has been served on the respondent/assessee, none appears for the respondent. There is a delay of 307 days in filing the appeal. Though the explanation offered is not fully

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 KOLKATA vs. SHRI SAWANKUMAR T JAJOO

Accordingly, the appeal fails and dismissed

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

bogus Long Term Capital Gain from sale of penny stocks and also covered by exceptions laid in respect of Para 3.1(h) of CBDT’S Circular No. 5 of 2024 dated March 15, 2024? 3 3. We have heard Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and Ms. Aratrika Roy, learned senior Advocate appearing for respondent/assessee. There

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL -1, KOLKATA vs. SURAJ SAHANA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

bogus, but they used an expression “pre-arranged” sale, for which no material was referred to by the Commissioner or placed by the revenue before the learned tribunal. 29. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that if the Assessing Officer had failed to make an enquiry, it is a duty cast upon the CIT(A) to conduct an enquiry which

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MUKESH SARAOGI (HUF)

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

bogus, but they used an expression “pre-arranged” sale, for which no material was referred to by the Commissioner or placed by the revenue before the learned tribunal. 29. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that if the Assessing Officer had failed to make an enquiry, it is a duty cast upon the CIT(A) to conduct an enquiry which

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-15, KOLKATA vs. SMT. BABITA AGARWAL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

bogus, but they used an expression “pre-arranged” sale, for which no material was referred to by the Commissioner or placed by the revenue before the learned tribunal. 29. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that if the Assessing Officer had failed to make an enquiry, it is a duty cast upon the CIT(A) to conduct an enquiry which

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5,KOLKATA vs. SWATI BAJAJ

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

bogus, but they used an expression “pre-arranged” sale, for which no material was referred to by the Commissioner or placed by the revenue before the learned tribunal. 29. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that if the Assessing Officer had failed to make an enquiry, it is a duty cast upon the CIT(A) to conduct an enquiry which

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12, KOLKATA vs. MUKTA AGARWAL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

bogus, but they used an expression “pre-arranged” sale, for which no material was referred to by the Commissioner or placed by the revenue before the learned tribunal. 29. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that if the Assessing Officer had failed to make an enquiry, it is a duty cast upon the CIT(A) to conduct an enquiry which

PR CIT 9, KOLKATA vs. MANISHA TIKMANI

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

bogus, but they used an expression “pre-arranged” sale, for which no material was referred to by the Commissioner or placed by the revenue before the learned tribunal. 29. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that if the Assessing Officer had failed to make an enquiry, it is a duty cast upon the CIT(A) to conduct an enquiry which

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,BURDWAN vs. BIJAYA TAH

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

bogus, but they used an expression “pre-arranged” sale, for which no material was referred to by the Commissioner or placed by the revenue before the learned tribunal. 29. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that if the Assessing Officer had failed to make an enquiry, it is a duty cast upon the CIT(A) to conduct an enquiry which

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-SILIGURI vs. SHEKHAR AGARWAL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

bogus, but they used an expression “pre-arranged” sale, for which no material was referred to by the Commissioner or placed by the revenue before the learned tribunal. 29. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that if the Assessing Officer had failed to make an enquiry, it is a duty cast upon the CIT(A) to conduct an enquiry which

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9, KOLKATA vs. PUSPA DEVI TIKMANI

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

bogus, but they used an expression “pre-arranged” sale, for which no material was referred to by the Commissioner or placed by the revenue before the learned tribunal. 29. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that if the Assessing Officer had failed to make an enquiry, it is a duty cast upon the CIT(A) to conduct an enquiry which

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9, KOLKATA vs. GITESH TIKMANI

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

bogus, but they used an expression “pre-arranged” sale, for which no material was referred to by the Commissioner or placed by the revenue before the learned tribunal. 29. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that if the Assessing Officer had failed to make an enquiry, it is a duty cast upon the CIT(A) to conduct an enquiry which

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA vs. POOJA JHUNJHUNWALA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

bogus, but they used an expression “pre-arranged” sale, for which no material was referred to by the Commissioner or placed by the revenue before the learned tribunal. 29. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that if the Assessing Officer had failed to make an enquiry, it is a duty cast upon the CIT(A) to conduct an enquiry which

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SILIGURI vs. PRAKASHO DEVI SARIA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

bogus, but they used an expression “pre-arranged” sale, for which no material was referred to by the Commissioner or placed by the revenue before the learned tribunal. 29. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that if the Assessing Officer had failed to make an enquiry, it is a duty cast upon the CIT(A) to conduct an enquiry which