SURENDRA COMMERCIAL & EXIM PVT. LD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8 (4), KOL

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

house and asked him to report to the police station to which his wife (DW2) objected and then DW1 was asked to sign on a paper. So, as per submission of the learned Advocate that it would be apparent that this accused person has been falsely implicated and picked up from his residence by the police personnel

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA vs. JEMISH SHAH

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

house and by making a general allegation the transaction done by the assessee cannot be termed to be a sham transaction. Further the assessee stated that in case ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 18 of 150 there was any specific incident of any admission by any such person which points out to the assessee, request

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

house and by making a general allegation the transaction done by the assessee cannot be termed to be a sham transaction. Further the assessee stated that in case ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 18 of 150 there was any specific incident of any admission by any such person which points out to the assessee, request

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

house and by making a general allegation the transaction done by the assessee cannot be termed to be a sham transaction. Further the assessee stated that in case ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 18 of 150 there was any specific incident of any admission by any such person which points out to the assessee, request

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

house and by making a general allegation the transaction done by the assessee cannot be termed to be a sham transaction. Further the assessee stated that in case ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 18 of 150 there was any specific incident of any admission by any such person which points out to the assessee, request

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

house and by making a general allegation the transaction done by the assessee cannot be termed to be a sham transaction. Further the assessee stated that in case ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 18 of 150 there was any specific incident of any admission by any such person which points out to the assessee, request

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

house and by making a general allegation the transaction done by the assessee cannot be termed to be a sham transaction. Further the assessee stated that in case ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 18 of 150 there was any specific incident of any admission by any such person which points out to the assessee, request

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

house and by making a general allegation the transaction done by the assessee cannot be termed to be a sham transaction. Further the assessee stated that in case ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 18 of 150 there was any specific incident of any admission by any such person which points out to the assessee, request

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

house and by making a general allegation the transaction done by the assessee cannot be termed to be a sham transaction. Further the assessee stated that in case ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 18 of 150 there was any specific incident of any admission by any such person which points out to the assessee, request

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

house and by making a general allegation the transaction done by the assessee cannot be termed to be a sham transaction. Further the assessee stated that in case ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 18 of 150 there was any specific incident of any admission by any such person which points out to the assessee, request

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

house and by making a general allegation the transaction done by the assessee cannot be termed to be a sham transaction. Further the assessee stated that in case ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 18 of 150 there was any specific incident of any admission by any such person which points out to the assessee, request

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-18, KOLKATA vs. SRI VIKASH GOEL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

house and by making a general allegation the transaction done by the assessee cannot be termed to be a sham transaction. Further the assessee stated that in case ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 18 of 150 there was any specific incident of any admission by any such person which points out to the assessee, request

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

house and by making a general allegation the transaction done by the assessee cannot be termed to be a sham transaction. Further the assessee stated that in case ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 18 of 150 there was any specific incident of any admission by any such person which points out to the assessee, request

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

house and by making a general allegation the transaction done by the assessee cannot be termed to be a sham transaction. Further the assessee stated that in case ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 18 of 150 there was any specific incident of any admission by any such person which points out to the assessee, request

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

house and by making a general allegation the transaction done by the assessee cannot be termed to be a sham transaction. Further the assessee stated that in case ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 18 of 150 there was any specific incident of any admission by any such person which points out to the assessee, request

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SILIGURI vs. SRI SATYA NARAYAN SARIA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

house and by making a general allegation the transaction done by the assessee cannot be termed to be a sham transaction. Further the assessee stated that in case ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 18 of 150 there was any specific incident of any admission by any such person which points out to the assessee, request

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, KOLKATA vs. KRISHNA KUMAR PARSURAMKA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

house and by making a general allegation the transaction done by the assessee cannot be termed to be a sham transaction. Further the assessee stated that in case ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 18 of 150 there was any specific incident of any admission by any such person which points out to the assessee, request

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA vs. SHRI MAHENDRA KUMAR PERIWAL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

house and by making a general allegation the transaction done by the assessee cannot be termed to be a sham transaction. Further the assessee stated that in case ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 18 of 150 there was any specific incident of any admission by any such person which points out to the assessee, request