AJIT KUMAR PATNI,KOLKATA vs. IT0, WD-28(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

bogus on the basis of report received from DIT (INVESTIGATION), KOLKATA on shares of Tuni Textile Mills Limited amounting to Rs. 13,13,436/ under section 68 which was claimed exempt under section 10(38) even though all the evidences, documents, papers for substantiating the genuine LTCG Learned were produced by the appellant before

AJIT KUMAR PATNI,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-28(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

bogus on the basis of report received from DIT (INVESTIGATION), KOLKATA on shares of Tuni Textile Mills Limited amounting to Rs. 13,13,436/ under section 68 which was claimed exempt under section 10(38) even though all the evidences, documents, papers for substantiating the genuine LTCG Learned were produced by the appellant before

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

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

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 271(1)(c) of the Income

ITO, KOLKATA vs. AJIT KUMAR MINDA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and cross objections of the\nassessee are dismissed

bogus transactions in the shares of KAFL also\ndid not implicate the assessee and/or his broker, ft is also a matter of record\nthat the assessee furnished all evidences in the form of bills, contract notes,\ndemat statements and the bank accounts to prove the genuineness of the\ntransactions relating to purchase and sale of shares resulting in LTCG.\nThese

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

ACIT, CIR-14(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ULTRATECH NATHDWARA CEMENT LTD.(KNOWN AS M/S BINANI CEMENT LTD.), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

bogus. I.T.A. Nos.: 1726/KOL/2014 & 152/KOL/2018 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2013-14 I.T.A. Nos.: 611/KOL/2015 & 470/KOL/2018 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2013-14 M/s. UltraTech Nathdwara Cement Ltd. (Earlier known as M/s. Binani Cement Ltd.) Now UltraTech Cement Limited. 2.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred consequently in confirming the disallowance

BINANI CEMENT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-XXVIII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

bogus. I.T.A. Nos.: 1726/KOL/2014 & 152/KOL/2018 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2013-14 I.T.A. Nos.: 611/KOL/2015 & 470/KOL/2018 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2013-14 M/s. UltraTech Nathdwara Cement Ltd. (Earlier known as M/s. Binani Cement Ltd.) Now UltraTech Cement Limited. 2.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred consequently in confirming the disallowance

M/S. ULTRATECH NATHDWARA CEMENT LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. BINANI CEMENT LTD.,),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

bogus. I.T.A. Nos.: 1726/KOL/2014 & 152/KOL/2018 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2013-14 I.T.A. Nos.: 611/KOL/2015 & 470/KOL/2018 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2013-14 M/s. UltraTech Nathdwara Cement Ltd. (Earlier known as M/s. Binani Cement Ltd.) Now UltraTech Cement Limited. 2.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred consequently in confirming the disallowance

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ULTRATECH NATHDWARA CEMENT LTD. (KNOWN AS M/S. BINANI CEMENT LTD.), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

bogus. I.T.A. Nos.: 1726/KOL/2014 & 152/KOL/2018 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2013-14 I.T.A. Nos.: 611/KOL/2015 & 470/KOL/2018 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2013-14 M/s. UltraTech Nathdwara Cement Ltd. (Earlier known as M/s. Binani Cement Ltd.) Now UltraTech Cement Limited. 2.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred consequently in confirming the disallowance

SHRI ROHIT AGARWAL ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 36, , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Rohit Agarwal Assistant Commissioner Of C/O Salarpuria Jajodia & Co. Income Tax, Circle-36, Vs. 7, C. R. Avenue, Kolkata- Kolkata. 700072. (Pan: Annpa0403B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

234B & 234C and your petitioner completely denies its liability for any such interest and hence such interest charged may kindly be deleted. 5. For that your petitioner craves the right to put additional grounds and I or to alter/amend/modify the present grounds at the time of hearing.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed its return