I.T.O WD - 10(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S VEDA COMMERCIAL PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of Revenue stands dismissed and that of assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

260A. No substantial question of law is raised.—Gopal Purohit vs. Jt. CIT (2009) 122 TTJ (Mumbai) 87 : (2009) 20 DTR (Mumbai)(Trib) 99 affirmed. Tribunal having entered a pure finding of fact that the assessee is engaged in two different types of transactions namely, investment in shares and dealing in shares for the purposes of business and held that

VEDA COMMERCIAL PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. ADDL C.I.T RG - 10,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of Revenue stands dismissed and that of assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

260A. No substantial question of law is raised.—Gopal Purohit vs. Jt. CIT (2009) 122 TTJ (Mumbai) 87 : (2009) 20 DTR (Mumbai)(Trib) 99 affirmed. Tribunal having entered a pure finding of fact that the assessee is engaged in two different types of transactions namely, investment in shares and dealing in shares for the purposes of business and held that

M/S SHREENATH HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,HOWRAH vs. I.T.O.,WARD-5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble] I.T.A. No. 2390/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Shreenath Holding Pvt. Ltd…………...……………....……..…………..………………....……Appellant 33/34, Ramlal Mukherjee Lane 2Nd Floor Room No. 2D Howrah - 711106 [Pan: Aadcs 5887 P] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Kolkata…………………………..............….....….…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit, Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 24Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 26Th, 2020 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 2, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld.Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 17/10/2019, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Is A Company & Is Engaged In The Business Of Trading & Distribution Of Goods. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 16/08/2012 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.15,500/-. During The Year, The Assessee Raised Share Capital Including Premium Amounting To Rs.1,13,55,000/-. The Assessing Officer Conducted Enquiries & The Assessee Presented The Share Holders Including The Directors Of The Share Holding Companies Before The Assessing Officer. After Due Enquiry, The Assessing Officer Accepted The Explanations Of The Assessee That The Cash Credits In The Form Of Share Capital Were Genuine, Except In The Case Of M/S. Seacom Merchants, Which Had Applied For Shares. An Amount Of Rs. 20,00,000/- Pertaining To M/S. Seacom Merchants, Was Added.

260A of the Income Tax Act cannot reappreciate the evidence to come to any contrary evidence. Income Tax Act cannot reappreciate the evidence to come to any contrary evidence. Income Tax Act cannot reappreciate the evidence to come to any contrary evidence. Considering that the authorities have rendered the findings of facts based on that the authorities have rendered

ITO, WARD - 40(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. SHRI VISHWANATH GUPTA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

purchase of shares of NCL and when sales happened through registered share broker in the stock exchange and through banking channel, then the sale proceeds the assessee received cannot be held as bogus unless there is any material with the AO to take an adverse view. However, the AO has failed to bring any evidence on record to suggest involvement

ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S VISHNU DISTRIBUTORS PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is devoid of any merit, hence dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 50/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-2013

bogus and un explained cash credit in its books as per the provisions of section 68 of the Act. 3 Vishnu Distributors Pvt. Limited Reliance was placed on various case laws to justify his action (supra). On the other hand, the AR has drawn my attention to the fact that the transfer of impugned shares were not based

M/S. TEDIUM COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the revenue

Bench: the AO. Finally the AO added the amount as unexplained cash credit to the income of the assessee.

bogus company though the assessee filed with the AO the name and address, PAN, Form-18, bank statement, audited balance sheet etc. before the AO. Finally the AO added the amount as unexplained cash credit to the income of the assessee. 4. The CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal of the assessee by confirming the order

DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S DOTEX MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objections are also dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

bogus share capital in them. For doing all these activities he earns cash commission from clients. In his statement recorded during the course of survey, Shri U. S. Mahawar stated that the Dotex Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. Was registered in 1994 as paper/shell company by an entry operator named Shri Binod Kumar Jaiswal. Initial capital was only Rs. 5 Lakh with

ITO, WARD - 40(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. SHRI SURESH CHAND GUPTA, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2014-15 Ito Ward-40(2) V/S. Shri Suresh Chand Gupta 2Nd Floor, 3 16, Tara Chand Dutta Government Place Street, Kolkata-700073 West,Kolkata-700001 [Pan No.Aczpg 0724 C] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Ajoy Kr. Singh, Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 26-11-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 26-12-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Kolkata’S Order Dated 20.04.2017, Passed In Case No.10190/Cit(A)-12/Kol/Ward-40(2)/2016-17, In Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Ground Raised In The Instant Appeal Pleads That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Reversing The Assessing Officer’S Action Treating Assessee’S Alleged Long Term Capital Gains (Ltcg) Of ₹3,84,74,960/- To Be Bogus In The Nature Of Unexplained Cash Credits U/S 68 Of The Act. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion Qua The Impugned Sole Issue Reads As Under:- “3.2 I Have Perused The Observations & Findings Contained In The Assessment Order. I Have Also Considered The Submission Of The Appellant Along With Paper Book Filed By Ld. A/R Which Contained, Inter-Alia, The Following Documents:-

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. The appeal and the stay petition, accordingly, shall stand dismissed.” b) The JAIPUR ITAT in the case of VIVEK AGARWAL[ITA No.292/JP/2017]order dated 06.04.2018 held as under vide Page 9 Para 3: “We hold that the addition made

M/S GREEN STAR CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 45, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2011-12

bogus. On a query from the Bench, the Ld. DR submitted that additions can be made u/s. 41(1) of the Act. He argued that neither the Ld. AO nor the Ld. CIT(A) had invoked this section of the Act. The Ld. DR submitted that it is implied that this section was invoked by the assessing authority

M/S. FUTURE DISTRIBUTORS,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, KOLKATA - 9, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

bogus commission expenditure to reduce her taxable income arising out of the illegal transfer of money generated by the lottery business 'conducted by the Martin Group. That Shri Martin operated as a lottery scamster has been established by the chargesheet filed by the CBI, Cochin Branch against Shri Martin. The press reports also highlighted at the relevant point of time

ITO, WD-5(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SAYAJI MARKETING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result we set aside the order of the Ld

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 282/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Ito, Ward-5(2), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Sayaji Marketing Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aagcs 0147 M] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 39/Kol/2018 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No. 282/Kol/2014) Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S Sayaji Marketing Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aagcs 0147 M] (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

purchasers of shares of the companies thereafter, show bogus sale of the investments held by such company to third parties through a chain of transactions, by way of layering and bring in their unaccounted money into that company. 14.1. Such practices have to be depreciated. In such cases the assessees cannot claim that the entire transactions are bogus transactions

ITO, WD-5(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BLESSING COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result we set aside the order of the Ld

Bench: Hon‟Ble Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 271/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 I.T.O., Ward-5(3), Kolkata -Vs.- M/S. Blessings Commercial Pvt. Ltd. 228A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aaccb 1349 N] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Goulen Hangshing, Cit, Dr. For The Respondent : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2017 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Vi, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Dt. 19/11/2013, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The „Act‟), Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Facts In Brief:- The Assessee Is A Company & Is Engaged In The Business Of Finance & Investment. It Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011-12 On 22/09/2010, Declaring –Nil- Income. It Showed A Loss Of Rs.668/-. The Facts As Recorded By The Assessing Officer In The Assessment Order Are Extracted Below:- “Para 1.2.1 The Assessee Has Shown Receipt Of Under Mentioned Share Capital Of Rs.1,90,00,000/- & Share Premium Of Rs.188,10,00,000/- During The Asst. Year 2010-11. The Assessee Credited Rs.1,90,00,000/- In Total In Its Books Against The Above Receipts. The Assessee Claimed That The Detail Of Receipts Are As Under :-

purchasers of shares of the companies thereafter, show bogus sale of the investments held by such company to third parties through a chain of transactions, by way of layering and bring in their unaccounted money into that company. 14.1. Such practices have to be depreciated. In such cases the assessees cannot claim that the entire transactions are bogus transactions

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. A.R. STANCHEM (P) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

purchased for various research/testing etc. by the society at Rs.25 lakh. In addition, the donee has also incurred huge expenses or chemicals, Primars and other consumables for research work, salary and rent etc. 26. It was further, submitted that as the society had inadequate financial resources, it was made to understand by certain persons acting as mediators about

SHREE AUTOMOTIVE PRIVATE LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2012-13 is allowed and appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

bogus donations and that the registration conferred upon it under sections l2AA and 80G of the Act was completely being misused by the Trust. An entity which is misusing the status conferred upon it by section 12AA of the Act is not entitled to retain and enjoy said status. The authorities were therefore, right and justified in cancelling the registration

SHREE AUTOMOTIVE PRIVATE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-10. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2012-13 is allowed and appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

bogus donations and that the registration conferred upon it under sections l2AA and 80G of the Act was completely being misused by the Trust. An entity which is misusing the status conferred upon it by section 12AA of the Act is not entitled to retain and enjoy said status. The authorities were therefore, right and justified in cancelling the registration

ITO, WARD - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TRIBUTE TRADING AND FINANCE LTD.,, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. The appeal and the stay petition, accordingly, shall stand dismissed.” b) The JAIPUR ITAT in the case of VIVEK AGARWAL[ITA No.292/JP/2017]order dated 06.04.2018 held as under vide Page 9 Para 3: “We hold that the addition made

SRI SUBRATA BANERJEE ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 51(1) , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. The appeal and the stay petition, accordingly, shall stand dismissed.” b) The JAIPUR ITAT in the case of VIVEK AGARWAL[ITA No.292/JP/2017]order dated 06.04.2018 held as under vide Page 9 Para 3: “We hold that the addition made

ITO, WARD - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TRIBUTE TRADING AND FINANCE LTD.,, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. The appeal and the stay petition, accordingly, shall stand dismissed.” b) The JAIPUR ITAT in the case of VIVEK AGARWAL[ITA No.292/JP/2017]order dated 06.04.2018 held as under vide Page 9 Para 3: “We hold that the addition made