V2 RETAIL LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

249/- after giving effect to the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals). Thereafter it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee-company had under-valued its closing stock and also claimed deduction for bogus purchases. He accordingly reopened the assessment and issued a notice under section

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]

249 (Guj) 8. On a perusal of the order of the Tribunal it clearly appears that whether the said transactions were bogus or not was a question of fact. The Tribunal has also pointed out that nothing is shown to indicate that any part of the fund given by the assessee to these parties came back to the assessee

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]

249 (Guj) 8. On a perusal of the order of the Tribunal it clearly appears that whether the said transactions were bogus or not was a question of fact. The Tribunal has also pointed out that nothing is shown to indicate that any part of the fund given by the assessee to these parties came back to the assessee

BALMUKUND CONCAST PVT. LTD.,,PATNA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Balmukund Concast Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Cc 4(3) 108 Kalyani Complex, Exhibition Aaykar Bhawan, Kolkata-700069 Vs. Road, Patna-800001, Bihar West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaacb9503G

bogus purchases. Thus, once, the CESTAT and the Tribunal have held the purchases made by the four Jammu based entities to be genuine, the corresponding sales effected by them to the assessee have to be accepted as genuine. ITA Nos. 1380,1892 & 1893/KOL/2025 Balmukund Concast Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 2019-20 & 2023-24 11. In that scenario, in our considered view

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND CONCAST PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Balmukund Concast Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Cc 4(3) 108 Kalyani Complex, Exhibition Aaykar Bhawan, Kolkata-700069 Vs. Road, Patna-800001, Bihar West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaacb9503G

bogus purchases. Thus, once, the CESTAT and the Tribunal have held the purchases made by the four Jammu based entities to be genuine, the corresponding sales effected by them to the assessee have to be accepted as genuine. ITA Nos. 1380,1892 & 1893/KOL/2025 Balmukund Concast Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 2019-20 & 2023-24 11. In that scenario, in our considered view

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND CONCAST PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Balmukund Concast Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Cc 4(3) 108 Kalyani Complex, Exhibition Aaykar Bhawan, Kolkata-700069 Vs. Road, Patna-800001, Bihar West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaacb9503G

bogus purchases. Thus, once, the CESTAT and the Tribunal have held the purchases made by the four Jammu based entities to be genuine, the corresponding sales effected by them to the assessee have to be accepted as genuine. ITA Nos. 1380,1892 & 1893/KOL/2025 Balmukund Concast Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 2019-20 & 2023-24 11. In that scenario, in our considered view

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. LUCKY GOLD STAR COMPANY LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

249/- only. 4.1 The AO during the assessment proceedings also observed that the assessee has made purchases of finished goods during the year worth of Rs.12,56,44,789/- only. Out of the total purchases, goods worth of Rs.7,87,12,837/- only were purchased from the parties which are known/ related and located at the same address

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. LUCKY GOLD STAR COMPANY LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

249/- only. 4.1 The AO during the assessment proceedings also observed that the assessee has made purchases of finished goods during the year worth of Rs.12,56,44,789/- only. Out of the total purchases, goods worth of Rs.7,87,12,837/- only were purchased from the parties which are known/ related and located at the same address

SATYANARAYAN HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(2), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.444/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13

249 of Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the ld. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction of this expression has fallen for consideration before Hon’ble High Court as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme

BIRENDRANATH SAMANTA,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIR-2, BURDWAN, BURDWAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 227/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Birendra Nath Samanta Assistant Commissioner Of Anandapally, Sripally Vs Income Tax, Cirlce-2, Burdwan Burdwan - 713103 [Pan : Akaps8240C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 12/05/2022 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 253 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. In The Condonation Application, The Assessee Stated That An Affidavit & An Application Has Been Filed Wherein It Has Been Submitted That The Impugned Order Was Passed On 12/05/2022 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Ex-Parte. The Said Appellate Order Was Sent Through E- Mail At Debudan1975@Gmail.Com, Which Belonged To Shri Debabrata Dan, A Resident Of Burdwan & Looking After The Income Tax Matters

249 of the Act, which provides power to the ld. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing of the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and consideration of this expression has fallen for consideration before the Hon’ble High Courts as well as before

MITUL PRAVINCHANDRA MALANI, ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 33, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed while the penalty of ₹9,560/- imposed is hereby cancelled

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2014-15

purchased and sold the scrips of Life Line Drugs and Pharma Limited. There may be reasons like low tax effect for not preferring an appeal but penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be automatically levied on the basis of the addition maded. In the case of National Textiles v. CIT [2001] 249 ITR 125 (Guj.), it has been held

HEMANT KUMAR PATWARI,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-34(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of all the captioned assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

249/-. The assessee had claimed long-term capital gain of Rs.47,16,148/- earned from sale of equity shares of Cressanda Solutions Limited, which were claimed as exempted under section 10(38) of the Act. In this respect, the assessee had purchased 10,000 equity shares of Smartchamp IT & Infra Limited on 17.12.2011 for a sum of Rs.1

SHYAM KARIWALA, KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of all the captioned assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

249/-. The assessee had claimed long-term capital gain of Rs.47,16,148/- earned from sale of equity shares of Cressanda Solutions Limited, which were claimed as exempted under section 10(38) of the Act. In this respect, the assessee had purchased 10,000 equity shares of Smartchamp IT & Infra Limited on 17.12.2011 for a sum of Rs.1

SHYAMA AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-3(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of all the captioned assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

249/-. The assessee had claimed long-term capital gain of Rs.47,16,148/- earned from sale of equity shares of Cressanda Solutions Limited, which were claimed as exempted under section 10(38) of the Act. In this respect, the assessee had purchased 10,000 equity shares of Smartchamp IT & Infra Limited on 17.12.2011 for a sum of Rs.1

RAJESH KR. MOHTA ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 62(3), , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of all the captioned assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

249/-. The assessee had claimed long-term capital gain of Rs.47,16,148/- earned from sale of equity shares of Cressanda Solutions Limited, which were claimed as exempted under section 10(38) of the Act. In this respect, the assessee had purchased 10,000 equity shares of Smartchamp IT & Infra Limited on 17.12.2011 for a sum of Rs.1

NAWAL KISHORE LADHA AND SONS (HUF),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 44(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of all the captioned assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

249/-. The assessee had claimed long-term capital gain of Rs.47,16,148/- earned from sale of equity shares of Cressanda Solutions Limited, which were claimed as exempted under section 10(38) of the Act. In this respect, the assessee had purchased 10,000 equity shares of Smartchamp IT & Infra Limited on 17.12.2011 for a sum of Rs.1

M/S SACHIDA SALES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-9(4), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of all the captioned assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

249/-. The assessee had claimed long-term capital gain of Rs.47,16,148/- earned from sale of equity shares of Cressanda Solutions Limited, which were claimed as exempted under section 10(38) of the Act. In this respect, the assessee had purchased 10,000 equity shares of Smartchamp IT & Infra Limited on 17.12.2011 for a sum of Rs.1

SHYAM SUNDER BAJAJ ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(2) , KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of all the captioned assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

249/-. The assessee had claimed long-term capital gain of Rs.47,16,148/- earned from sale of equity shares of Cressanda Solutions Limited, which were claimed as exempted under section 10(38) of the Act. In this respect, the assessee had purchased 10,000 equity shares of Smartchamp IT & Infra Limited on 17.12.2011 for a sum of Rs.1

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