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

bogus purchases has no\nlegs to stand. Moreover we find that the coal manufacturing requirement\nof the plant are within the acceptable norms and parameters as has been\nprescribed by the government in the manufacturing process of steel. Even if we\nassume that there has been purchase of coal from the Majee Group, then\nthe same might have used

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

bogus purchases has no\nlegs to stand. Moreover we find that the coal manufacturing requirement\nof the plant are within the acceptable norms and parameters as has been\nprescribed by the government in the manufacturing process of steel. Even if we\nassume that there has been purchase of coal from the Majee Group, then\nthe same might have used

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

bogus purchases has no\nlegs to stand. Moreover we find that the coal manufacturing requirement\nof the plant are within the acceptable norms and parameters as has been\nprescribed by the government in the manufacturing process of steel. Even if we\nassume that there has been purchase of coal from the Majee Group, then\nthe same might have used

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

bogus purchases has no\nlegs to stand. Moreover we find that the coal manufacturing requirement\nof the plant are within the acceptable norms and parameters as has been\nprescribed by the government in the manufacturing process of steel. Even if we\nassume that there has been purchase of coal from the Majee Group, then\nthe same might have used

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

bogus purchases has no\nlegs to stand. Moreover we find that the coal manufacturing requirement\nof the plant are within the acceptable norms and parameters as has been\nprescribed by the government in the manufacturing process of steel. Even if we\nassume that there has been purchase of coal from the Majee Group, then\nthe same might have used

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

bogus purchases has no\nlegs to stand. Moreover we find that the coal manufacturing requirement\nof the plant are within the acceptable norms and parameters as has been\nprescribed by the government in the manufacturing process of steel. Even if we\nassume that there has been purchase of coal from the Majee Group, then\nthe same might have used

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

bogus purchases has no\nlegs to stand. Moreover we find that the coal manufacturing requirement\nof the plant are within the acceptable norms and parameters as has been\nprescribed by the government in the manufacturing process of steel. Even if we\nassume that there has been purchase of coal from the Majee Group, then\nthe same might have used

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

bogus purchases has no\nlegs to stand. Moreover we find that the coal manufacturing requirement\nof the plant are within the acceptable norms and parameters as has been\nprescribed by the government in the manufacturing process of steel. Even if we\nassume that there has been purchase of coal from the Majee Group, then\nthe same might have used

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

bogus purchases has no\nlegs to stand. Moreover we find that the coal manufacturing requirement\nof the plant are within the acceptable norms and parameters as has been\nprescribed by the government in the manufacturing process of steel. Even if we\nassume that there has been purchase of coal from the Majee Group, then\nthe same might have used

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

bogus purchases has no\nlegs to stand. Moreover we find that the coal manufacturing requirement\nof the plant are within the acceptable norms and parameters as has been\nprescribed by the government in the manufacturing process of steel. Even if we\nassume that there has been purchase of coal from the Majee Group, then\nthe same might have used

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

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and\nappeals of the revenue are dismissed

bogus purchases has no\nlegs to stand. Moreover we find that the coal manufacturing requirement\nof the plant are within the acceptable norms and parameters as has been\nprescribed by the government in the manufacturing process of steel. Even if we\nassume that there has been purchase of coal from the Majee Group, then\nthe same might have used

PRATIK AGARWAL BENEFICIARY TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, C.C.-3(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

bogus capital gain. Though in the written submissions filed by the assessee arguments have been placed both on the legal issue as well as merits of the case, we will first take up the legal ground raised in the instant bunch of appeals. 14. The legal issue raised is that principles of natural justice have been violated

M/S. NISHIT AGARWAL BENEFICIARY TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC - 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

bogus capital gain. Though in the written submissions filed by the assessee arguments have been placed both on the legal issue as well as merits of the case, we will first take up the legal ground raised in the instant bunch of appeals. 14. The legal issue raised is that principles of natural justice have been violated

PINKY AGARWAL ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

bogus capital gain. Though in the written submissions filed by the assessee arguments have been placed both on the legal issue as well as merits of the case, we will first take up the legal ground raised in the instant bunch of appeals. 14. The legal issue raised is that principles of natural justice have been violated

M/S. GATEWAY FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC - 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

bogus capital gain. Though in the written submissions filed by the assessee arguments have been placed both on the legal issue as well as merits of the case, we will first take up the legal ground raised in the instant bunch of appeals. 14. The legal issue raised is that principles of natural justice have been violated

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

natural justice have been violated in the case of all the four assessees namely M/s. Gateway Financial Services Ltd., M/s. Nishit Agarwal Beneficiary Trust, Pinky Agarwal and Pratik Agarwal Beneficiary Trust. 35. In the preceding paragraphs, we have dealt with the legal issue regarding the matter that since the assessee has not been provided sufficient opportunity to cross examine those

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

natural justice have been violated in the case of all the four assessees namely M/s. Gateway Financial Services Ltd., M/s. Nishit Agarwal Beneficiary Trust, Pinky Agarwal and Pratik Agarwal Beneficiary Trust. 35. In the preceding paragraphs, we have dealt with the legal issue regarding the matter that since the assessee has not been provided sufficient opportunity to cross examine those

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

natural justice and 6 I.T.A. No. 763/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Nalanda Builders Pvt. Ltd. has to be deleted. In defense of his arguments the ld AR relied on the decision of Andaman Timber Industries CCE(2015)281 CTR 241(SC) The ld AR argued that the assessment by the Assessing Officer is purely based on conjectures and surmises sans