APL METALS LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(3), KOLKATA

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm I.T.A. No.297/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2018-19 Apl Metals Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, National C/O, Subash Agarwal & Faceless Assessment Centre, Associates, Advocates, Siddha Delhi. Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata- 700069. (Pan: Aacca4246P) (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 115BBE of the Act and added the alleged purchase of raw material of Rs.57,49,01,910/- and assessed the income accordingly. 6. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and filed detailed written submission in support of its contention that purchases were genuine and also enclosed the copy of GST returns, party wise details and quantity

MANISH KUMAR BAID,KOLKATA vs. ACIT CIRCLE 35, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1236/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Manish Kumar Baid -Vs- Acit, Cir-35, Kolkata [Pan: Ahmpb 3024 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1237/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mahendra Kumar Baid -Vs- Acit, Cir-35, Kolkata [Pan: Aejpb 7691 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 3. The brief facts of the first issue as has been recorded by the ld AO in the Assessment Order are that the assessee claimed long term capital gains from transactions in shares of Kailash Auto Finance Limited (KAFL). The ld AO found that the assessee, on 20.12.2011, purchased 240000 shares

MAHENDRA KUMAR BAID,KOLKATA vs. ACIT CIRCLE 35, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1236/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Manish Kumar Baid -Vs- Acit, Cir-35, Kolkata [Pan: Ahmpb 3024 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1237/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mahendra Kumar Baid -Vs- Acit, Cir-35, Kolkata [Pan: Aejpb 7691 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 3. The brief facts of the first issue as has been recorded by the ld AO in the Assessment Order are that the assessee claimed long term capital gains from transactions in shares of Kailash Auto Finance Limited (KAFL). The ld AO found that the assessee, on 20.12.2011, purchased 240000 shares

HARI RAM AGARWAL ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 22(4) , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey & Shri M. Balaganeshi.T.A. No.2363/Kol/2018 (Assessment Year 2014-15) Hari Ram Agarwal Ito, Ward-22(4), Kolkata. -Vs- [Pan :Acdpa 1946 N]

234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 3. The brief facts of this issue are that the assessee claimed long term capital gains from transactions in shares of Kailash Auto Finance Limited (KAFL). The assessee on 1.3.2012 purchased 50000 shares of the face value of Rs.1 each in Careful Projects Advisory Limited (CPAL) through off market from M/s. Needful Vincom

NEELAM DUGAR ,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD - 35(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 1530/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Neelam Dugar,......................................Appellant 75, Bbd Road, Eliza 3, 4Th Floor, Hindmotor, Hooghly-712233 [Pan: Ahhpd6956A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,...............................Respondent Ward-35(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 7Th Floor, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 Appearances By: Shri A.N. Keshri, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 09, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 19, 2023 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz):- The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata Dated 18.04.2018 Passed For A.Y. 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Five Grounds Of Appeal. In Ground No. 1, She Has Submitted That Ld. Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.69,57,000/-, Which Was Added By The Ld. Assessing Officer Under Section 1 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Neelam Dugar 68 Of The Income Tax Act. In Ground No. 2, She Has Pleaded That Ld. Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.1,66,794/- & In Ground No. 3, The Assessee Has Challenged Charging Of Interest Under Section 234A & 234B Of The Income Tax Act. In Grounds No. 4 & 5, The Assessee Has Raised Supporting Argument Qua Earlier Three Grounds Of Appeal.

purchased these shares for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- and sold them for a consideration of Rs.69,57,000/-. Thus she claimed exempt income under section 10(38) of Rs.66,71,743/-. Apart from these, there were certain other small activities. The ld. Assessing Officer has noticed that there is a jump of almost 2669 percent in a span

NEHA DIWAN,HINDMOTOR vs. ITO WARD - 23(1), HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

234A and 234B of the Act which is not chargeable and/or excessively charged. I.T.A. No.: 630/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Neha Diwan. 15. That the Ld. Assessing Officer arbitrarily initiated penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961. 16. That the Ld. Assessing Officer arbitrarily initiated penalty proceeding under section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLKATA vs. JKJ JEWELLERS (HCM), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as CO of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Jkj Jewellers (Hcm) Income Tax Officer 1St Floor, 18, Hanspukur First 3, Govt. Place (West), Ground Lane, Burrabazar, Floor, Kolkata-700069, West Vs. Kolkata-700007, Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aakfj7956Q Co No. 26/Kol/2024 (Arising In Ita No. 420/Kol/2024 For A.Y. 2017-18) Jkj Jewellers (Hcm) Income Tax Officer 1St Floor, 18, Hanspukur First 3, Govt. Place (West), Ground Lane, Burrabazar, Floor, Kolkata-700069, Vs. Kolkata-700007, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. Jhajharia, Ar Revenue By : Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2024

bogus purchase etc. ITA No.420//KOL/2024 & CO. 26/KOL/2024; M/s JKJ Jewellers (HCM); A.Y. 2017-18 4. Appellant has duly submitted copy of VAT return as filed with sales tax department and the same remains genuine and hence sales so made cannot be doubtful. 5. Quantum of cash balance to remain with an assessee cannot be decided by AO, since

PRAHLAD DUTT LATA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-35(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 265/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Prahlad Dutt Lata Income Tax Officer, Ward – Vs 35(1), Kolkata Urvashi Apartment 3, Hunger Ford Street Kolkata - 700017 [Pan : Aaxpl1559J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/03/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 2, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 13/08/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 86 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit & The Reason For The Said Delay Is Mainly On Account Of Old Age Of The Assessee & The Delay On The Part Of The Person Who Received The Envelope Sent From The Office Of The Ld. Cit(A) Which Was Required To Be Handed Over To The Assessee. On Perusal Of The Affidavit, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented For Reasonable Cause

sections 234A amounting to Rs.61,780 (Rs.61,600 as per order u/s 154/144) and u/s 234B amounting to Rs.5,26,996 (as per order u/s 154/144) has been wrongly charged. 8. That the appellant craves leave to add to or modify the grounds off appeal on or before the final hearing of the appeal.” 5. Facts in brief are that