DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S CD EQUIPFINANCE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner C. D. Equifinance Pvt. Of Income-Tax Ltd. Vs. Circle-7(1) 37, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata. Kolkata-700 017. (Pan: Aaccp7333A) (Appellant) (Respondent)

bogus transaction. He further submitted that this transaction was entered into in the ordinary course of investment activity of the assessee and that assessee had not claimed set off of the said loss against income of the relevant year. He also pointed out that before ld. CIT(A) it was clarified that assessee had not availed the benefit

OM FORGING & ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE PR. CIT-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

forwarded information that bogus purchase bills were being issued by some of the dealers to several companies. Some of the beneficiaries of such bogus bills issued by the entry operators in Mumbai were persons from Kolkata and a list of such persons was also received. The assessee’s name was also found as a beneficiary in such list. There

ACIT, CIRCLE - 34, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. BHAWARLAL ALOKE KUMAR , KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2014-15 Acit, Cicle-34, V/S. Bhawarlal Aloke Kumar Aayakar Poorva, 7Th P-12, New Howrah Bridge Approach Road, 4Th Floor, Floor, 110, Shantipally, Kolkatka-107 Kolkta-700001 [Pan No.Aadfb 0620 N] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant None ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 04-02-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 03-05-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee‘S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata’S Order Dated 23.01.2018 Passed In Case No.224/Cit(A)-10/C-34/14-15/16-17/Kol, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Case Called Twice. None Appears At The Assessee’S Behest Despite The Registry Having Sent An Rpad Notice. It Is Accordingly Proceeded Ex Parte. 2. Revenue’S Sole Substantive Grievance Raised In The Instant Appeal Seeks To Challenge Correctness Of Cit(A)’S Action Partly Upholding Assessing Officer’S Findings Disallowing Assessee’S Purchase(S) Of ₹3,22,28,000/- Only To The Extent Of 15% Vide Impugned Following Detailed Discussion:- “06. Findings &. Decision:

loss account. We find that the payment for purchases have been made by account payee cheques which fact has been accepted as genuine by the Learned AO. We also find that the assesses had given reasonable ITA No.779/Kol/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 ACIT, Cir-34, Kol. Vs. Bhawarlal Aloke Kumar Page 4 explanation before the lower authorities that the proprietor

M/S SUDERA SERVICES (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE ITO, WD-8(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

bogus. Further, that the assessee by entering into the above transaction of purchase and sale of shares has not derived any tax benefit neither in the relevant assessment year nor in subsequent assessment years. 11. Our attention is invited to the Schedule of "Details of Losses to be carried forward

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA,KOLKATA vs. M/S PRB SECURITIES PVT.LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 211/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Prb Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcp 5425 G ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

forwarded by the Investigation wing, the Assessing Officer came to a conclusion that the entire transaction of loss on purchase and sale of shares as bogus. 21 M/s PRB Securities Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr. 2013-14 Therefore, I am inclined to hold that the action of AO was predetermined and completely guided by the DDIT (Inv), Kolkata's report. Thus after

M/S BIHARI LAL MALPANI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 43(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey & Shri M. Balaganeshi.T.A. No.527/Kol/2017 (Assessment Year 2013-14) M/S Bihari Lal Malpani Ito, Ward-43(1), Kolkata. -Vs- [Pan :Adupm 6438 R]

bogus and having been done to convert unaccounted money of assessee to accounted income and, therefore, made addition under section 68 - On appeal, Tribunal deleted addition observing that DMAT account and contract note showed credit/details of share transactions; and that revenue had stopped inquiry at particular point and did not carry forward it to discharge basic onus - Whether on facts

MANGILAL JAIN ,DARJEELING vs. ITO, WARD - 3(3), DARJEELING , DARJEELING

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2014-15 Mangilal Jain Income Tax Officer, बनाम / C/O Advocate Pradip Ward-3(3), Nr. Lal V/S. Lakhotia, 2Nd Floor, Metro Kothi, Darjeeling Plaza, Sf Road, Siliguri-734005 [Pan No.Afkpj 4178 D] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Dhiraj Lakhotia, A.R अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri C.J. Singh, Jcit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 05-03-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 15-05-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Siliguri’S Order Dated 22.03.2018 Passed In Case No.69/Cit(A)/Slg/2016-17, Involving Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Grievance Raised In The Instant Appeal Seeks To Reverse Both The Lower Authorities Findings Treating His Short Term Capital Loss (Stcl) Arising From Sale Of Shares After Payment Of Security Transaction Tax (Stt), Amounting To ₹1,92,320/- As Bogus Unexplained Cash Credits. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reads As Under:- “4. Decision :- I Have Perused The Assessment Order, The Grounds Of Appeal & The Submissions Made By The Ld.. A/R On Behalf Of The Appellant. My Observations & Findings Are As Under :- 4.1. The Present Appeal Emanates After Disallowing Rs. 11,92,320/- Arising Out Of Shares Transaction & Treated The Same As Bogus. In This Case The Assessee Purchased 32000 Shares Of Global Infratech & Finance Ltd. Through Eureka Stock & Shares Broking Services Limited @ Rs. 77.37 Per Share Aggregating To Rs. 24,79,714/- On 11.02.2014 & Further Sold The

carried forward to the succeeding assessment year. " 4.4 I concur with the finding of the Assessing Officer the appellant failed to prove that the transaction leading to Short Term Capital Loss was not genuine but represented a part of series of transaction to create Short Term Capital Loss in the books of account through share transaction. It may also

BLB CABLES & CONDUCTORS(P)LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -5,, KOLKATA

In the result, ground No.2 is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year:2008-09

carried forward. 4. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) further erred in holding that the said speculation loss of Rs.22695157/- has to be ignored for the purpose of computing income under section 115JB of Income Tax Act 1961 in complete disregard of the Balance Sheet & Profit & Loss

MEGAPODE VYAPAAR PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

bogus loss. Thus, the addition/disallowance made by the assessee is merely on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. Therefore, in the present case, when the statements and investigation report relied upon by the AO has not been given to the assessee for the purpose of cross-examination as well as rebuttal, we in view of the above decision are inclined

MEGAPODE VYAPAAR PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

bogus loss. Thus, the addition/disallowance made by the assessee is merely on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. Therefore, in the present case, when the statements and investigation report relied upon by the AO has not been given to the assessee for the purpose of cross-examination as well as rebuttal, we in view of the above decision are inclined

DCIT, CENT. CIR-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RAMPURIA INDUSTRIES AND INVESTMENTS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

purchases and sales, genuineness of the transactions so as to arrive at a conclusion that whether the alleged loss is genuine or bogus in nature. 10. Considering the fact that transactions are voluminous and involves huge revenue we deem it proper to restore the issue under appeal to ld. AO to carry out necessary verification, examination and if required further

DCIT,CIR -6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S OFF-SHORE INDIA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

carry forward was not available to the resultant company. From these facts and figures I find that out of the total short term capital loss of Rs.35 crores which the assessee claimed in AY 2010-11, loss of Rs.30.76 crores or 88% was 4 Off-shore India Ltd., AY 2010-11 never set-off against any income since such loss

ACIT, CIRCLE-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result Ground no. 1 & 3 of the revenue are allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd…….............................................................……………………..Appellant 27, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aaecs 0765 R] Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-12 Kolkata……...............................…….…..Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13

carry out mere civil construction. Attention in this regard is invited to the following: (i) The ITAT (Ahmedabad) in case of Sugam Construction (P) Ltd. vs. ITO [56 SOT 45] held that "It is also gathered (a) That a developer is a person who undertakes the responsibility to develop a project. (b) That a developer is therefore not a civil

M/S. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result Ground no. 1 & 3 of the revenue are allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd…….............................................................……………………..Appellant 27, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aaecs 0765 R] Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-12 Kolkata……...............................…….…..Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13

carry out mere civil construction. Attention in this regard is invited to the following: (i) The ITAT (Ahmedabad) in case of Sugam Construction (P) Ltd. vs. ITO [56 SOT 45] held that "It is also gathered (a) That a developer is a person who undertakes the responsibility to develop a project. (b) That a developer is therefore not a civil

ACIT, CIRCLE-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result Ground no. 1 & 3 of the revenue are allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd…….............................................................……………………..Appellant 27, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aaecs 0765 R] Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-12 Kolkata……...............................…….…..Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13

carry out mere civil construction. Attention in this regard is invited to the following: (i) The ITAT (Ahmedabad) in case of Sugam Construction (P) Ltd. vs. ITO [56 SOT 45] held that "It is also gathered (a) That a developer is a person who undertakes the responsibility to develop a project. (b) That a developer is therefore not a civil

M/S. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result Ground no. 1 & 3 of the revenue are allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd…….............................................................……………………..Appellant 27, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aaecs 0765 R] Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-12 Kolkata……...............................…….…..Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13

carry out mere civil construction. Attention in this regard is invited to the following: (i) The ITAT (Ahmedabad) in case of Sugam Construction (P) Ltd. vs. ITO [56 SOT 45] held that "It is also gathered (a) That a developer is a person who undertakes the responsibility to develop a project. (b) That a developer is therefore not a civil

GANAPATI DEVELOPERS ,HOWRAH vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-47, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Madhumita Roy)

carried out in this case to identify the beneficiaries as a result of which more than 2500 beneficiaries were identified and the total amount of accommodation entries of bogus bills was found to be of Rs.1410 crores during F.Y. 2009-10 to F.Y. 2015-16. Further, it has also been reported in the report that the statements of 7 brokers

ITO, WARD -47(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUMIT JAISWAL, HOWRAH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1541/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 I.T.O., Ward-47(2), Kolkata -Vs- Sumit Jaiswal [Pan: Alupj 0779 L] (Appellant) (Respondent)

carried out for the first time during the year under appeal and hence, no past history of the same was available with the Income Tax Department. In these circumstances, the only recourse available to the revenue is to take shelter from the provision of Section 44AD of the Act which enables the revenue to bring