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

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 148 on 21.03.2014 after recording the reasons. In response to the said

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]

2. That under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(a) has erred in deleting the addition of rs.55,50,937/- without appreciating the fact that the purchase could not be verified because the owner of the premises denied to have assigned any part of the premises to any of these parties to whom the transactions

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]

2. That under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(a) has erred in deleting the addition of rs.55,50,937/- without appreciating the fact that the purchase could not be verified because the owner of the premises denied to have assigned any part of the premises to any of these parties to whom the transactions

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

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

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. 8D(2

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

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

Section 56(2)(x)of the Act are not applicable which provides that where the market value of the property is more than the sale consideration received by the assessee then the difference between the two shall be considered. The case of the assessee finds support from the decisions of the coordinate benches in the Sandeep Patil ITA No.924/Bang/2020, John

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

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

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

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

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 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

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

NAMOKAR 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 Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am]

249 (SC) 2. Pr. CIT vs. Indravadan Jain (HUF), ITA No. 454 of 2018, dated 12.07.2023 (Bom.) 3. ITO vs. Indravadan Jain (HUF), ITA No. 4861 & 5168/Mum/2014, dt. 27.05.2016. 4. Pr. CIT v, Smt. Renu Aggarwal ITA 44 of 2022 dt. 06.07.2022 (All.) 5. ITO Vs. Smt. Renu Aggarwal, ITA Nos.: 204 & 20S/LKW /2020 (ITAT Luck) 6. PCIT vs. Dipansu