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)

section 68 of the Act. More importantly the appellate authority noted that the first two entities are individuals and they are promoters of the assessee company and the shares issued to them are not added as premium. This peculiar aspect was noted and it was pointed out that the promoters do not share the view of the other companies

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

Section 68 of the Act does not arise. ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 20 of 150 6. The assessing officer after taking into consideration the submissions made by the assessee and the documents produced by the assessee noted that from the contract notes, it was seen that the assessee purchased 50,000 shares in Surabhi

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

Section 68 of the Act does not arise. ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 20 of 150 6. The assessing officer after taking into consideration the submissions made by the assessee and the documents produced by the assessee noted that from the contract notes, it was seen that the assessee purchased 50,000 shares in Surabhi

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

Section 68 of the Act does not arise. ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 20 of 150 6. The assessing officer after taking into consideration the submissions made by the assessee and the documents produced by the assessee noted that from the contract notes, it was seen that the assessee purchased 50,000 shares in Surabhi

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

Section 68 of the Act does not arise. ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 20 of 150 6. The assessing officer after taking into consideration the submissions made by the assessee and the documents produced by the assessee noted that from the contract notes, it was seen that the assessee purchased 50,000 shares in Surabhi

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

Section 68 of the Act does not arise. ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 20 of 150 6. The assessing officer after taking into consideration the submissions made by the assessee and the documents produced by the assessee noted that from the contract notes, it was seen that the assessee purchased 50,000 shares in Surabhi

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

Section 68 of the Act does not arise. ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 20 of 150 6. The assessing officer after taking into consideration the submissions made by the assessee and the documents produced by the assessee noted that from the contract notes, it was seen that the assessee purchased 50,000 shares in Surabhi

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

Section 68 of the Act does not arise. ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 20 of 150 6. The assessing officer after taking into consideration the submissions made by the assessee and the documents produced by the assessee noted that from the contract notes, it was seen that the assessee purchased 50,000 shares in Surabhi

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

Section 68 of the Act does not arise. ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 20 of 150 6. The assessing officer after taking into consideration the submissions made by the assessee and the documents produced by the assessee noted that from the contract notes, it was seen that the assessee purchased 50,000 shares in Surabhi

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

Section 68 of the Act does not arise. ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 20 of 150 6. The assessing officer after taking into consideration the submissions made by the assessee and the documents produced by the assessee noted that from the contract notes, it was seen that the assessee purchased 50,000 shares in Surabhi

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

Section 68 of the Act does not arise. ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 20 of 150 6. The assessing officer after taking into consideration the submissions made by the assessee and the documents produced by the assessee noted that from the contract notes, it was seen that the assessee purchased 50,000 shares in Surabhi

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

Section 68 of the Act does not arise. ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 20 of 150 6. The assessing officer after taking into consideration the submissions made by the assessee and the documents produced by the assessee noted that from the contract notes, it was seen that the assessee purchased 50,000 shares in Surabhi

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

Section 68 of the Act does not arise. ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 20 of 150 6. The assessing officer after taking into consideration the submissions made by the assessee and the documents produced by the assessee noted that from the contract notes, it was seen that the assessee purchased 50,000 shares in Surabhi

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

Section 68 of the Act does not arise. ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 20 of 150 6. The assessing officer after taking into consideration the submissions made by the assessee and the documents produced by the assessee noted that from the contract notes, it was seen that the assessee purchased 50,000 shares in Surabhi

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

Section 68 of the Act does not arise. ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 20 of 150 6. The assessing officer after taking into consideration the submissions made by the assessee and the documents produced by the assessee noted that from the contract notes, it was seen that the assessee purchased 50,000 shares in Surabhi

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

Section 68 of the Act does not arise. ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 20 of 150 6. The assessing officer after taking into consideration the submissions made by the assessee and the documents produced by the assessee noted that from the contract notes, it was seen that the assessee purchased 50,000 shares in Surabhi

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

Section 68 of the Act does not arise. ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 20 of 150 6. The assessing officer after taking into consideration the submissions made by the assessee and the documents produced by the assessee noted that from the contract notes, it was seen that the assessee purchased 50,000 shares in Surabhi

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

Section 68 of the Act does not arise. ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 20 of 150 6. The assessing officer after taking into consideration the submissions made by the assessee and the documents produced by the assessee noted that from the contract notes, it was seen that the assessee purchased 50,000 shares in Surabhi