M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), , KOLKATA

loss of any person qua which the\nId. AO wants enquire into as he considered necessary whereas the\nprovisions of Section 142(3) of the Act provides that unless the\nassessment is made u/s 144 of the Act,the assessee has to be given an\nopportunity of hearing in respect of any material gathered on the basis of\nenquiry

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

loss of any person qua which the\nId. AO wants enquire into as he considered necessary whereas the\nprovisions of Section 142(3) of the Act provides that unless the\nassessment is made u/s 144 of the Act,the assessee has to be given an\nopportunity of hearing in respect of any material gathered on the basis of\nenquiry

D.C.I.T., CC - 3(1),, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

loss of any person qua which the\nId. AO wants enquire into as he considered necessary whereas the\nprovisions of Section 142(3) of the Act provides that unless the\nassessment is made u/s 144 of the Act,the assessee has to be given an\nopportunity of hearing in respect of any material gathered on the basis of\nenquiry

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), , KOLKATA

loss of any person qua which the\nId. AO wants enquire into as he considered necessary whereas the\nprovisions of Section 142(3) of the Act provides that unless the\nassessment is made u/s 144 of the Act ,the assessee has to be given an\nopportunity of hearing in respect of any material gathered on the basis of\nenquiry

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3.1, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

loss of any person qua which the\nId. AO wants enquire into as he considered necessary whereas the\nprovisions of Section 142(3) of the Act provides that unless the\nassessment is made u/s 144 of the Act,the assessee has to be given an\nopportunity of hearing in respect of any material gathered on the basis of\nenquiry

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

loss of any person qua which the\nId. AO wants enquire into as he considered necessary whereas the\nprovisions of Section 142(3) of the Act provides that unless the\nassessment is made u/s 144 of the Act ,the assessee has to be given an\nopportunity of hearing in respect of any material gathered on the basis of\nenquiry

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), , KOLKATA

loss of any person qua which the\nId. AO wants enquire into as he considered necessary whereas the\nprovisions of Section 142(3) of the Act provides that unless the\nassessment is made u/s 144 of the Act,the assessee has to be given an\nopportunity of hearing in respect of any material gathered on the basis of\nenquiry

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1),, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

loss of any person qua which the\nId. AO wants enquire into as he considered necessary whereas the\nprovisions of Section 142(3) of the Act provides that unless the\nassessment is made u/s 144 of the Act ,the assessee has to be given an\nopportunity of hearing in respect of any material gathered on the basis of\nenquiry

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), , KOLKATA

loss of any person qua which the\nId. AO wants enquire into as he considered necessary whereas the\nprovisions of Section 142(3) of the Act provides that unless the\nassessment is made u/s 144 of the Act,the assessee has to be given an\nopportunity of hearing in respect of any material gathered on the basis of\nenquiry

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

loss of any person qua which the\nId. AO wants enquire into as he considered necessary whereas the\nprovisions of Section 142(3) of the Act provides that unless the\nassessment is made u/s 144 of the Act,the assessee has to be given an\nopportunity of hearing in respect of any material gathered on the basis of\nenquiry

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

ZULA MERCHANDISC PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUR MANGAL HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

loss amounting to Rs.75,84,698/- is hereby deleted.” 6. After hearing the rival submissions and perusing the material available on record, we find that the assessee has furnished before the Assessing Officer all the evidences qua the sale and purchase of shares of Alankit Ltd. along with demat account and also the fact that these transactions were carried

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 763/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Nalanda Builders Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata 5, Sree Charan Sarani Vs Bally Howrah – 711201 (West Bengal) [Pan : Aabcn7736Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dt. 23/11/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Issues Raised In Ground Nos. 2 To 4 Is Against The Confirmation Of Addition As Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Difference Between The Value Taken By The Assessee & The Fair Market Value (Fmv) U/S 50C Of The Act. 3. The Facts In Brief Are That During The Year, The Assessee Sold Two Flats For An Aggregate Consideration Of Rs.3,00,00,000/- & Accordingly Addition Of Rs.3,26,37,314/- Was Made To The Income Of The Assessee. In 2

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

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. K K GROUP OF COMPANY PVT. LTD., SIKKIM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm M/S Kk Group Of Company Acit, Central Circle-3(2), Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, Singtam Bazar, East Sikkim, 5Th Floor, 110, Shantipally, Vs. Singtam Forest Block, Singtam, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal S.O. 737134, Sikkim (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadck8867D Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.07.2025

Loss account a sum of ₹4,12,70,471/- under the head of ‘Provision of sub-contractors’ which are not admissible. Accordingly, he reached a conclusion that the order passed u/s 263/147/143(3) of the Act dated 30.09.2021 is erroneous and M/s KK Group of Company Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 2011-12 prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and accordingly

RUSSEL CREDIT LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, KOL, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2018-19

forward losses could be whatever has been considered in the impugned order or should be as per the assessee’s claim. Finally, it needs to be considered whether the amount of Rs. 96.65 lacs was disclosed and rightly treated by the assessee or needed to be adversely viewed, as has been done in the impugned order. 4.1. Regarding the taxability