PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9,KOLKATA vs. MANJU OSATWAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and

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

3) of the Act? iii) Whether the Learned Tribunal is perverse in our looking that it is the duty of the Tribunal to scratch surface and probe documentary evidence in depth in light of conduct of assessee and other surrounding circumstances in order to see whether the assessee is liable to provisions of Section 68 of the Income

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S JEALOUS COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK,HON'BLE JUSTICE MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI

3) determining the total income of Rs.9,00,00,360/- making addition of the entire share capital raised from the seven shareholders including the cash credit in terms of Section 68 of the Act of 1961. As noted above, the appellate authority set aside the order of the Assessing Officer. The decision of the appellate authority was upheld

AI CHAMPDANY INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX, CENTRAL - II KOLKATA , WEST BENGAL

In the result, we find that the order of the

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

68 ITR 128 (P&H), the said case arose for assessment for the year 1992-1993 and the facts in the said case are more or less identical to the case on hand. The Hon’ble Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court held as follows : “We find no merit in this contention. For expressing a view

BALGOPAL MERCHANTS PVT LTD. vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

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

3,65,95,490/- which remained unexplained is to be added back under Section 68 of the Act. The assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, (Kolkata) [(CIT(A)] contending that the order passed by the assessing officer was erroneous. The assessee’s case before the CIT(A) was, it is a private company engaged

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S MUNDHRA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- The Hon'Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das)

10,798/- remained unexplained and was, accordingly, added back under section 68 of the Act. The assessee was informed that penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) will be initiated separately. The assessee carried the matter on appeal before the appellate authority namely, National Faceless Appellate Centre (NFAC). The assessee contended that the addition made by the Assessing

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

10,000 shares in SRK Industries was able to sell those shares after 14 months for a total consideration of Rs. 75,61,372/- ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 39 of 150 thereby earning total LTCG of Rs. 74,68,959/-. Therefore, it is submitted that the Tribunal brushed aside these important facts and erroneously reversed

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

10,000 shares in SRK Industries was able to sell those shares after 14 months for a total consideration of Rs. 75,61,372/- ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 39 of 150 thereby earning total LTCG of Rs. 74,68,959/-. Therefore, it is submitted that the Tribunal brushed aside these important facts and erroneously reversed

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ASANSOL KOLKATA vs. RAJESH JHUNJHUNWALA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

10,000 shares in SRK Industries was able to sell those shares after 14 months for a total consideration of Rs. 75,61,372/- ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 39 of 150 thereby earning total LTCG of Rs. 74,68,959/-. Therefore, it is submitted that the Tribunal brushed aside these important facts and erroneously reversed

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

10,000 shares in SRK Industries was able to sell those shares after 14 months for a total consideration of Rs. 75,61,372/- ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 39 of 150 thereby earning total LTCG of Rs. 74,68,959/-. Therefore, it is submitted that the Tribunal brushed aside these important facts and erroneously reversed

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

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

10,000 shares in SRK Industries was able to sell those shares after 14 months for a total consideration of Rs. 75,61,372/- ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 39 of 150 thereby earning total LTCG of Rs. 74,68,959/-. Therefore, it is submitted that the Tribunal brushed aside these important facts and erroneously reversed

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ASANSOL KOLKATA vs. RAKESH JHUNJHUNWALA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

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

10,000 shares in SRK Industries was able to sell those shares after 14 months for a total consideration of Rs. 75,61,372/- ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 39 of 150 thereby earning total LTCG of Rs. 74,68,959/-. Therefore, it is submitted that the Tribunal brushed aside these important facts and erroneously reversed

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

10,000 shares in SRK Industries was able to sell those shares after 14 months for a total consideration of Rs. 75,61,372/- ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 39 of 150 thereby earning total LTCG of Rs. 74,68,959/-. Therefore, it is submitted that the Tribunal brushed aside these important facts and erroneously reversed

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

10,000 shares in SRK Industries was able to sell those shares after 14 months for a total consideration of Rs. 75,61,372/- ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 39 of 150 thereby earning total LTCG of Rs. 74,68,959/-. Therefore, it is submitted that the Tribunal brushed aside these important facts and erroneously reversed

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

10,000 shares in SRK Industries was able to sell those shares after 14 months for a total consideration of Rs. 75,61,372/- ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 39 of 150 thereby earning total LTCG of Rs. 74,68,959/-. Therefore, it is submitted that the Tribunal brushed aside these important facts and erroneously reversed

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

10,000 shares in SRK Industries was able to sell those shares after 14 months for a total consideration of Rs. 75,61,372/- ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 39 of 150 thereby earning total LTCG of Rs. 74,68,959/-. Therefore, it is submitted that the Tribunal brushed aside these important facts and erroneously reversed

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

10,000 shares in SRK Industries was able to sell those shares after 14 months for a total consideration of Rs. 75,61,372/- ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 39 of 150 thereby earning total LTCG of Rs. 74,68,959/-. Therefore, it is submitted that the Tribunal brushed aside these important facts and erroneously reversed

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

10,000 shares in SRK Industries was able to sell those shares after 14 months for a total consideration of Rs. 75,61,372/- ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 39 of 150 thereby earning total LTCG of Rs. 74,68,959/-. Therefore, it is submitted that the Tribunal brushed aside these important facts and erroneously reversed

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

10,000 shares in SRK Industries was able to sell those shares after 14 months for a total consideration of Rs. 75,61,372/- ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 39 of 150 thereby earning total LTCG of Rs. 74,68,959/-. Therefore, it is submitted that the Tribunal brushed aside these important facts and erroneously reversed