DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. DIVINE ALLOYS & POWER CO. LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and that of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 Divine Alloys & Power Co. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Block-A-139, Regent Estate, Income - Tax, Circle-3(1), Vs. 176/14/139, Rajpur Road, Kolkata. Kolkata-700092. (Pan: Aaccd 1367 Q) (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 68 as undisclosed income of the appellant. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in holding that the appellant was unable to establish the genuineness of the subscribers to the share capital/share application money/ share premium and creditworthiness / sources of income of the investors could not be established satisfactorily. 4. That the learned Commissioner

M/S. DIVINE ALLOYS & POWER CO. LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and that of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 Divine Alloys & Power Co. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Block-A-139, Regent Estate, Income - Tax, Circle-3(1), Vs. 176/14/139, Rajpur Road, Kolkata. Kolkata-700092. (Pan: Aaccd 1367 Q) (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 68 as undisclosed income of the appellant. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in holding that the appellant was unable to establish the genuineness of the subscribers to the share capital/share application money/ share premium and creditworthiness / sources of income of the investors could not be established satisfactorily. 4. That the learned Commissioner

DEPUTY COMMISSOENR OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 14A of the Act on account of expenses incurred to earn exempt income to Rs. 86,368/- in contravention of CBDT's Circular No. 5/2014 dated 11/02/2014?” 04. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income on 29.09.2015, declaring total loss of ₹10,22,220/-, which was selected for scrutiny under Computer Assisted

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 14A of the Act on account of expenses incurred to earn exempt income to Rs. 86,368/- in contravention of CBDT's Circular No. 5/2014 dated 11/02/2014?” 04. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income on 29.09.2015, declaring total loss of ₹10,22,220/-, which was selected for scrutiny under Computer Assisted

ELEGANT DEALMARK PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed, with Ground No

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

bogus and why the same should not be treated as its unaccounted money introduced in its books of accounts as share application money. Assessee was also asked vide this letter as to why the said share application money should not be treated as unaccounted cash credit in its books as per the provisions of section

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]

Section 14A of the Act. We observe that though the above decision has been rendered in the context of disallowance of interest attributable to funds invested towards tax free income but the same analogy is applicable for considering the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii). Therefore we are inclined to hold that 17 I.T.A. Nos.1068 & 1166/Kol/2017

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]

Section 14A of the Act. We observe that though the above decision has been rendered in the context of disallowance of interest attributable to funds invested towards tax free income but the same analogy is applicable for considering the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii). Therefore we are inclined to hold that 17 I.T.A. Nos.1068 & 1166/Kol/2017

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]

Section 14A of the Act. We observe that though the above decision has been rendered in the context of disallowance of interest attributable to funds invested towards tax free income but the same analogy is applicable for considering the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii). Therefore we are inclined to hold that 17 I.T.A. Nos.1068 & 1166/Kol/2017

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]

Section 14A of the Act. We observe that though the above decision has been rendered in the context of disallowance of interest attributable to funds invested towards tax free income but the same analogy is applicable for considering the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii). Therefore we are inclined to hold that 17 I.T.A. Nos.1068 & 1166/Kol/2017

SILVERLAKE TRADERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

bogus entries of name- lenders. iii. If the inquiries and investigations reveal that the identity of the creditors to be dubious or doubtful, or lack credit-worthiness, then the genuineness of the transaction would not be established. In such a case, the assessee would not have discharged the primary onus contemplated by section 68. [Para 11] ■ In the instant case

ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA vs. SHREEN HIRE PURCHASE (P) LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 22/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Income Tax Officer,................................Appellant Ward-5(1), Kolkata Aayakarbhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 -Vs.- Shreen Hire Purchase (P) Limited,...........Respondent 89, N.S. Road, Kolkata-700001 [Pan: Aamcs4023L] Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

bogus and unexplained under section 68 and added to the income of the assessee. Accordingly the ld. Assessing Officer held that the assessee has failed to furnish any plausible explanation and, therefore, the entire money received amounting to Rs.85,61,00,000/- was treated as unexplained and added to the income of the assessee in the assessment framed under section

ACIT, CIRCLE - 11(2) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SAFAL PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

Bogus Purchase related to the earlier issue of undisclosed stock, which is related in nature. The Ld. CIT(A) should have referred this issue also to the AO for verification and furnishing Remand Report. 6. That the appellant craves to add, alter/or amend any of the grounds of appeal during the course of hearing.” 3. Brief facts of the case

SAROJ BAID,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 36(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, J & Dr. Manish Borad

bogus and the income so disclosed was assessable as LTCG. (6) Ld. Income Tax Officer has failed to appreciate that your appellant has produced and submitted all possible documents, information in connection with her purchase and sale of shares of NCL Research & Financial Services 2 & Saroj Baid Ltd. on which L.T.C.G. of Rs. 68,87,029/- has been earned

SAROJ BAID,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, J & Dr. Manish Borad

bogus and the income so disclosed was assessable as LTCG. (6) Ld. Income Tax Officer has failed to appreciate that your appellant has produced and submitted all possible documents, information in connection with her purchase and sale of shares of NCL Research & Financial Services 2 & Saroj Baid Ltd. on which L.T.C.G. of Rs. 68,87,029/- has been earned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AXIS OVERSEAS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc 1(1), Kolkata Axis Overseas Limited Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, 21A, Shakespeare Sarani, Vs. 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700107, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagca7497L Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri P.N. Barnwal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.12.2025

bogus in nature. Further, as per the details furnished by the appellant, it is clear that the AO has acted on the wrong facts because both the lender companies had shown the said transactions with assessee in the accounts under the head “Sundry Debtors” and they have furnished the accounts confirmations as well. Hence, the Axis Overseas Limited

SAMRAT FINVESTORS PRIVATE LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD- 10(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 840/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Samrat Finvestors Private Limited Income Tax Officer, Ward – 10(2), 20/1, Maharshi Debendra Vs Kolkata 2Nd Floor, Room No. 13A Kolkata - 700007 [Pan : Aadcs4698G] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/R Revenue By : Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/12/2023 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. 27/06/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee In The Instant Appeal Has Raised Two Effective Issues In The Various Grounds Before Us Which Are Summed Up As Under:- (I) That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.3,98,50,208/- As Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Alleged Bogus Loss In Share Trading & In F&O Segment. (Ii) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.11,58,944/- As Made By The Assessing

bogus loss in share trading & in F&O segment. (ii) The ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the addition of Rs.11,58,944/- as made by the Assessing 2 I.T.A. No. 840/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Samrat Finvestors Private Limited Officer by invoking provisions of Section 14A of the Act r.w.r

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SOMANI SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

Bench: the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata.

14A of I.T.Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of I.T. Rules, 1962 are being invoked to calculate the amount of expenses incurred to earn the above exempt income which is as under :- ………” It was the submission that there was no question of “change of opinion” by the subsequent AO as no initial opinion was formed by the first round

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SOMANI SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

Bench: the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata.

14A of I.T.Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of I.T. Rules, 1962 are being invoked to calculate the amount of expenses incurred to earn the above exempt income which is as under :- ………” It was the submission that there was no question of “change of opinion” by the subsequent AO as no initial opinion was formed by the first round