DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. VEDA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

dividend income also which is quite reflective of the intention of investment and not for profit motive though an investor is not precluded from realizing its investment which may result into profit in favourable circumstances. 5.3.8 We also find that the practice followed by the assessee by offering capital gains for investment activities and business income for trading activities

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. VEDA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

dividend income also which is quite reflective of the intention of investment and not for profit motive though an investor is not precluded from realizing its investment which may result into profit in favourable circumstances. 5.3.8 We also find that the practice followed by the assessee by offering capital gains for investment activities and business income for trading activities

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RANGE-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

deemed to accrue or arise in India’for the purpose of Section 5(2)(b). The point of time when commission agent’s right to receive the commission fructifies is irrelevant to decide the scope of Explanation 1 to Section 9(1 )(i), which is what is material in the context of the situation that we are in seisin

DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

deemed to accrue or arise in India’for the purpose of Section 5(2)(b). The point of time when commission agent’s right to receive the commission fructifies is irrelevant to decide the scope of Explanation 1 to Section 9(1 )(i), which is what is material in the context of the situation that we are in seisin

DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

deemed to accrue or arise in India’for the purpose of Section 5(2)(b). The point of time when commission agent’s right to receive the commission fructifies is irrelevant to decide the scope of Explanation 1 to Section 9(1 )(i), which is what is material in the context of the situation that we are in seisin

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RANGE-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

deemed to accrue or arise in India’for the purpose of Section 5(2)(b). The point of time when commission agent’s right to receive the commission fructifies is irrelevant to decide the scope of Explanation 1 to Section 9(1 )(i), which is what is material in the context of the situation that we are in seisin

ITO, WD-44(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S M. PRASAD & CO. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: He Ao In Assessment Proceedings & Filed Books Of Account, Relevant Bills, Vouchers & Bank Statement. The Ao Determined The Assessed Income At Rs.65,85,920/- By Making The Following Additions Vide Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Act Dt. 23-03-2013:-

dividend income over and above the figure of Rs.12,881/- suo-moto disallowed by the assesse. We find that the ld. AO cannot directly resort to the computation mechanism provided in Rule 8D(2) of the Rules for the purpose of making disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act. It is incumbent on the part of the ld.AO to verify

RAGUVALIKA TRADING PVT LTD ( SINCE MERGED WITH M.M.MURARKA SHARE & SECURITIES PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

purchased the scrips with a clear intention of holding it as investments only as the period of holding of these shares are also comparatively larger and the version of the Assessing Officer that the period of holding is too short gets defeated. The assessee had indeed the intention of earning dividends but had also parallely chosen to exit from

RAGUVALIKA TRADING PVT LTD ( SINCE MERGED WITH M.M.MURARKA SHARE & SECURITIES PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

purchased the scrips with a clear intention of holding it as investments only as the period of holding of these shares are also comparatively larger and the version of the Assessing Officer that the period of holding is too short gets defeated. The assessee had indeed the intention of earning dividends but had also parallely chosen to exit from

RAGUVALIKA TRADING PVT LTD ( SINCE MERGED WITH M.M.MURARKA SHARE & SECURITIES PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

purchased the scrips with a clear intention of holding it as investments only as the period of holding of these shares are also comparatively larger and the version of the Assessing Officer that the period of holding is too short gets defeated. The assessee had indeed the intention of earning dividends but had also parallely chosen to exit from

RAGUVALIKA TRADING PVT LTD ( SINCE MERGED WITH M.M.MURARKA SHARE & SECURITIES PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

purchased the scrips with a clear intention of holding it as investments only as the period of holding of these shares are also comparatively larger and the version of the Assessing Officer that the period of holding is too short gets defeated. The assessee had indeed the intention of earning dividends but had also parallely chosen to exit from

M/S PATRON VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-10(4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

deemed to be erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and does not want us to interfere in the order of the Ld. Pr. CIT. 9. With the aforesaid factual background, let us examine whether the finding of the Pr.CIT that the AO's order is erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue on account of lack

MANISH CHAND AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 40, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy& Sri Aby T. Varkey] I.T.A. No. 371/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & I.T.A. No. 372/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

bogus claim and pay highest rate of Income Tax in addition to Service Tax. In our view, the same amount is being taxed twice. In view of the above discussion, we delete the addition and allow this ground of the assessee. 11. Ground No. 3 is on the issue of disallowance of freight charges, on the ground that the same

MANISH CHAND AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 40, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy& Sri Aby T. Varkey] I.T.A. No. 371/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & I.T.A. No. 372/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

bogus claim and pay highest rate of Income Tax in addition to Service Tax. In our view, the same amount is being taxed twice. In view of the above discussion, we delete the addition and allow this ground of the assessee. 11. Ground No. 3 is on the issue of disallowance of freight charges, on the ground that the same

KESHAV SARAF,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-15, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

purchase and sale of shares through it and on receipt of a positive reply from the share broker, completed the assessment accepting huge Long Term Capital Gains of Rs. 44,09,326/-, without taking into consideration the statements of various entry operators / share dealers who had admitted that shares of CCL International Ltd. were artificially raised on the Stock exchanges

SRI SUBRATA BANERJEE ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 51(1) , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year. “ 2. It is implied from the language used that assessee must have incurred expenditure and the assessee has either failed to offer any explanation regarding source from which expenditure was incurred or such explanation is in the opinion of A.O. is not satisfactory. 3. The observations and findings

ITO, WARD - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TRIBUTE TRADING AND FINANCE LTD.,, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year. “ 2. It is implied from the language used that assessee must have incurred expenditure and the assessee has either failed to offer any explanation regarding source from which expenditure was incurred or such explanation is in the opinion of A.O. is not satisfactory. 3. The observations and findings

ITO, WARD - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TRIBUTE TRADING AND FINANCE LTD.,, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year. “ 2. It is implied from the language used that assessee must have incurred expenditure and the assessee has either failed to offer any explanation regarding source from which expenditure was incurred or such explanation is in the opinion of A.O. is not satisfactory. 3. The observations and findings

HILL QUEEN INVESTMENT PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Hill Queen Investment (P) Ltd...……………………....................................……………..…….............Appellant Surobala Apartments Flat No. 202 3Rd Floor Block-B Rekhjuani, Bhatinda Rajarhat Kolkata – 700 135 [Pan : Aaacj 2324 P] Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Kolkata..................…………...............................…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Devi Sharan Singh, Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 6Th, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 21St, 2021 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 2, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 20/03/2020, For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. There Is A Delay Of 223 (Two Hundred Twenty Three) Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee. After Perusing The Petition For Condonation For Delay, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause In Filing The Appeal In Time. Hence, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal. 3. The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.20,40,470/- On 28/09/2015. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny For The Following Reasons:- “(I) Mismatch In Sales Turnover Reported In Audit Report & Itr (Ii) Mismatch In Amount Paid To Related Persons U/S 40A(2)(B) Reported In Audit Report & Itr (Iii) Suspicious Sale Transaction In Shares (Penny Stock Tab In Its)”

bogus transaction were shown and exemption claimed u/s 10(38) of the Act. He submitted that the AO has not examined n claimed u/s 10(38) of the Act. He submitted that the AO has not examined n claimed u/s 10(38) of the Act. He submitted that the AO has not examined the case from this angle and under