M/S. ALLOY STEEL EMPORIUM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), dated 05.03.2013. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee reads as follows: 1. That the assessment order dated 05.03.2013 framed u/s. 143(3)/147 is void and nullity in the eye of law as there are no recorded reasons to belief that

ACIT, CC-3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SNOWTEX INVESTMENT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.) Asstt. Year : 2012-13 A.C.I.T, Cc-3(2), Kolkata Vs M/S. Snowtex Investment Ltd. Pan: Aaecs 0334C (Assessee/Department) (Respondent/Assessee)

purchase and sale of shares, granting and taking of loans and advances. With regard to investment under the head 'Share Application Money', the closing balance as on, 31-03-2012 was Rs. 46,09,34,000/- and the opening balance was Rs. 18,99,60,000/-. Hence, an amount of Rs.27,09,74,000/- was invested in share application money

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]

253 (Kolkata trib) , wherein it was held :- & CO Nos. 153 & 154/Kol/2010 Veda Commercial Pvt. Ltd., AY 2006-07 & 2007-08 5.3 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record including the detailed paper book filed by the assessee containing the scrutiny assessment orders of the assessee for the Asst years

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]

253 (Kolkata trib) , wherein it was held :- & CO Nos. 153 & 154/Kol/2010 Veda Commercial Pvt. Ltd., AY 2006-07 & 2007-08 5.3 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record including the detailed paper book filed by the assessee containing the scrutiny assessment orders of the assessee for the Asst years

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]

253-256 of PB volumn-1. According to assessee, since the damages were received on account of delay in supply/non-installation of assets which eventually lead to delay in coming into existence the profit making apparatus of the assessee and thus these damage are not a part of receipt in the regular course of business of assessee. The assessee relied

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]

253-256 of PB volumn-1. According to assessee, since the damages were received on account of delay in supply/non-installation of assets which eventually lead to delay in coming into existence the profit making apparatus of the assessee and thus these damage are not a part of receipt in the regular course of business of assessee. The assessee relied

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]

253-256 of PB volumn-1. According to assessee, since the damages were received on account of delay in supply/non-installation of assets which eventually lead to delay in coming into existence the profit making apparatus of the assessee and thus these damage are not a part of receipt in the regular course of business of assessee. The assessee relied

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]

253-256 of PB volumn-1. According to assessee, since the damages were received on account of delay in supply/non-installation of assets which eventually lead to delay in coming into existence the profit making apparatus of the assessee and thus these damage are not a part of receipt in the regular course of business of assessee. The assessee relied

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KAMARHATTY COMPANY LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of Revenue (in Ground No

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Dr.A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2011-12

2)(ii) & (iii) of the Rules. The aforesaid view of the Tribunal has since been affirmed as correct by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in G.A.No.3581 of 2013 in the appeal against the order of the Tribunal in the case of REI Agro Ltd. (supra). We also rely of the following judgments, wherein it was held that

MARUTI TRADERS & INVESTORS,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 31, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 846/Kol/2017 I.T.A. No. 637/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2013-14

253/- and claimed the same as exempt in the return of income. The assessee held all the shares as stock in trade and did not possess any shares as investments. The ld AO show caused the assessee as to why disallowance u/s 14A of the Act should not be made in accordance with the method prescribed in Rule 8D(2

MARUTI TRADERS & INVESTORS,KOLKATA vs. ACIT CIRCLE 31, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 846/Kol/2017 I.T.A. No. 637/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2013-14

253/- and claimed the same as exempt in the return of income. The assessee held all the shares as stock in trade and did not possess any shares as investments. The ld AO show caused the assessee as to why disallowance u/s 14A of the Act should not be made in accordance with the method prescribed in Rule 8D(2

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMAR KUMAR AGARAWAL, KOLKATA

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

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

2. At the outset, we note that the appeals of the assessee is barred by limitation by 93 days in IT(SS)A Nos. 86 to 89/KOL/2025, 2007/KOL/2025. At the time of hearing the counsel of the assessee explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeal which were opposed by the ld. DR as being in sufficient

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL, KOLKATA

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

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

2. At the outset, we note that the appeals of the assessee is barred by limitation by 93 days in IT(SS)A Nos. 86 to 89/KOL/2025, 2007/KOL/2025. At the time of hearing the counsel of the assessee explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeal which were opposed by the ld. DR as being in sufficient

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL, KOLKATA

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

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

2. At the outset, we note that the appeals of the assessee is barred by limitation by 93 days in IT(SS)A Nos. 86 to 89/KOL/2025, 2007/KOL/2025. At the time of hearing the counsel of the assessee explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeal which were opposed by the ld. DR as being in sufficient

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL, KOLKATA

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

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

2. At the outset, we note that the appeals of the assessee is barred by limitation by 93 days in IT(SS)A Nos. 86 to 89/KOL/2025, 2007/KOL/2025. At the time of hearing the counsel of the assessee explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeal which were opposed by the ld. DR as being in sufficient

AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 4(3),, KOLKATA

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

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

2. At the outset, we note that the appeals of the assessee is barred by limitation by 93 days in IT(SS)A Nos. 86 to 89/KOL/2025, 2007/KOL/2025. At the time of hearing the counsel of the assessee explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeal which were opposed by the ld. DR as being in sufficient

SMT. SUSHILA DEVI KAJARIA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 36, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

purchase of shares from secondary market at a very high rate and immediately sold out the shares at abnormally low rate to crate loss systematically for the only purpose minimizing the tax liability during the year under consideration. Hence, set off loss of Rs. 2,93,7201- with income from other source is here by disallowed

NAVIN KUMAR KAJARIA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 35, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

purchase of shares from secondary market at a very high rate and immediately sold out the shares at abnormally low rate to crate loss systematically for the only purpose minimizing the tax liability during the year under consideration. Hence, set off loss of Rs. 2,93,7201- with income from other source is here by disallowed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA vs. DHARMENDRA SINGH, KOLKATA

Appeal of the revenue is allowed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Itat Received From The Office Of The Pr. Cit, Central-2, Kolkata 26.06.2024 Filed 2Nd Appeal U/S 253 Before The Hon’Ble Itat, Kolkata

section 253 expires on 06.05.2024, there caused a delay in filing of this appeal in 51 days. Therefore, it is requested to kindly condone the delay in filing appeal for the sake of substantial justice. Verification I, the undersigned, do hereby verify on solemn affirmation in Kolkata that the contents of this affidavit are true to the best