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

3. Although, in this appeal, the assessee has raised a multiple grounds of appeal but at the time of hearing the solitary grievance of the assessee has been confined to ground No.3, that is, the addition of Rs.1,52,40,253/- made by the A.O. on account of alleged bogus purchase. Other grounds were not pressed by 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]

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

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(3), KOLKATA vs. M/S. GRD COMMODITIES LTD., , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] It(Ss)A Nos.120 To123/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2012-13

bogus transaction, the disclosures made could not be said to be all "true" and "full". Relying upon the said judgment the High Court held that merely because the 9 IT(SS)A Nos.120-123/Kol/2018 & C.O. Nos. 123 to 126/Kol/2018 GRD Commodities Ltd., AYs- 2009-10 to 2012-13 transaction of convertible bonds was disclosed at the time of original assessment does

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. G.S. ATWAL & COMPANY (ENGINEERS) PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and Cross

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

bogus expenses of Rs.8,44,85,526/- is concerned, the ld. Assessing Officer himself did not make any addition because this allegation in the reasons has no connection with the assessee-company. As far as the first issue is concerned, this Bank account is within the knowledge of Department not in this year but right from

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

253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross-objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression “sufficient cause” employed in this Section has also been used identically in sub-Section 3 of Section

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

Section 14A r.w.r. Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules by the Assessing Officer is not warranted. That being so, we decline to interfere in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, we confirm the order passed by Ld. CIT(A). 4.4.In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue (in Ground No.2) is dismissed. 5.Ground No.3 raised

GULMOHAR DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-9(2), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2009-10

253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross-objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a ‘sufficient cause’ for not presenting it within that period. Similarly, the phrase ‘sufficient cause’ has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction

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

253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression sufficient cause employed in the section has also been used identically in sub-section 3 of section

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-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 - 10(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. ANJAN INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, revenue appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

purchases from bogus parties, therefore, books of accounts of the assessee needs to be rejected. The next issue would be as to what would be reasonable profit which can be estimated. It is seen that the assessee is showing a net profit of 6.8 % in assessment year 2010-11; 5 Anjan Infrastructure

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

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

3. The company under consideration does not satisfy any of the following criterion generally considered by an investor while selecting a company for investment, some of them are as under : • The company should have a good business model and "long-term prospects" • It it controlled by a Good management • Its financial strength and capital structure gives confidence and reduces risk

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

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

3. The company under consideration does not satisfy any of the following criterion generally considered by an investor while selecting a company for investment, some of them are as under : • The company should have a good business model and "long-term prospects" • It it controlled by a Good management • Its financial strength and capital structure gives confidence and reduces risk

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

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

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