PRAVESH KUMAR LAKHMANI ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10 , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

purchases goes against principle of Sec 68 and 69C of the Act, was upheld by the Apex Court. 5.10 It is imperative on the part of the Assessing Officer to examine each and every transaction and finally to assess correct income of the assessee. In this case, the 17 I.T.A. Nos. 41 to 47/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ritin Lakhmani

RACHIT LAKHMANI ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

purchases goes against principle of Sec 68 and 69C of the Act, was upheld by the Apex Court. 5.10 It is imperative on the part of the Assessing Officer to examine each and every transaction and finally to assess correct income of the assessee. In this case, the 17 I.T.A. Nos. 41 to 47/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ritin Lakhmani

REETA LAKHMANI,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10 , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

purchases goes against principle of Sec 68 and 69C of the Act, was upheld by the Apex Court. 5.10 It is imperative on the part of the Assessing Officer to examine each and every transaction and finally to assess correct income of the assessee. In this case, the 17 I.T.A. Nos. 41 to 47/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ritin Lakhmani

RAVISH LAKHMANI ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10 , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

purchases goes against principle of Sec 68 and 69C of the Act, was upheld by the Apex Court. 5.10 It is imperative on the part of the Assessing Officer to examine each and every transaction and finally to assess correct income of the assessee. In this case, the 17 I.T.A. Nos. 41 to 47/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ritin Lakhmani

JAIKISHAN LAKHMANI ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10 , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

purchases goes against principle of Sec 68 and 69C of the Act, was upheld by the Apex Court. 5.10 It is imperative on the part of the Assessing Officer to examine each and every transaction and finally to assess correct income of the assessee. In this case, the 17 I.T.A. Nos. 41 to 47/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ritin Lakhmani

RITIN LAKHMANI,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10 , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

purchases goes against principle of Sec 68 and 69C of the Act, was upheld by the Apex Court. 5.10 It is imperative on the part of the Assessing Officer to examine each and every transaction and finally to assess correct income of the assessee. In this case, the 17 I.T.A. Nos. 41 to 47/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ritin Lakhmani

GOPICHAND LAKHMANI ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

purchases goes against principle of Sec 68 and 69C of the Act, was upheld by the Apex Court. 5.10 It is imperative on the part of the Assessing Officer to examine each and every transaction and finally to assess correct income of the assessee. In this case, the 17 I.T.A. Nos. 41 to 47/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ritin Lakhmani

SULTANIA REALTORS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 250 of ITA No.: 2057/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sultania Realtors Pvt. Ltd. the Act, despite the fact that the appellant had duly filed an adjournment application. 3. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in not affording a proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 4. That

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

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

bogus, A.D. has proceeded to make addition @ 2% of LTCG as commission paid to broker as unexplained expenditure. The provisions of Section 69C which deals with unexplained expenditure speaks for addition where the A.C. is in possession of document in support of actual expenditure. It is submitted that Section 69C cannot be applied for hypothetical figure. Hence, addition

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

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

bogus, A.D. has proceeded to make addition @ 2% of LTCG as commission paid to broker as unexplained expenditure. The provisions of Section 69C which deals with unexplained expenditure speaks for addition where the A.C. is in possession of document in support of actual expenditure. It is submitted that Section 69C cannot be applied for hypothetical figure. Hence, addition

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

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

bogus, A.D. has proceeded to make addition @ 2% of LTCG as commission paid to broker as unexplained expenditure. The provisions of Section 69C which deals with unexplained expenditure speaks for addition where the A.C. is in possession of document in support of actual expenditure. It is submitted that Section 69C cannot be applied for hypothetical figure. Hence, addition

M/S PATRON VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-10(4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 114 of the Evidence Act. A prima facie evidence, on the basis of the aforesaid presumption, is thus converted into a conclusive proof of the fact that the order was passed by the assessing officer after due application of mind. Meerut Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. C.I.T., ITA No. 116 /Coch/ 2012; CIT vs. Infosys Technologies

NARAYAN SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

purchasers not relatives cannot be put to\nassessee hence reasons of reopening recorded by Assessing\nOfficer not sustainable. (A.Y. 2009-2010) Laxmiraj Distributors\nPvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2017) 53 ITR 376 (Ahd.) (Trib.) also ACIT v.\nKad Housing P. Ltd. (2019) 69 ITR 550 (Delhi) (Trib).\n30.\nCase u/s 143(1): The Assessing Officer cannot reopen without\nestablishing prima facie

HILL QUEEN INVESTMENT PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Hill Queen Investment (P) Ltd...……………………....................................……………..…….............Appellant Surobala Apartments Flat No. 202 3Rd Floor Block-B Rekhjuani, Bhatinda Rajarhat Kolkata – 700 135 [Pan : Aaacj 2324 P] Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Kolkata..................…………...............................…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Devi Sharan Singh, Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 6Th, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 21St, 2021 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 2, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 20/03/2020, For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. There Is A Delay Of 223 (Two Hundred Twenty Three) Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee. After Perusing The Petition For Condonation For Delay, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause In Filing The Appeal In Time. Hence, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal. 3. The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.20,40,470/- On 28/09/2015. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny For The Following Reasons:- “(I) Mismatch In Sales Turnover Reported In Audit Report & Itr (Ii) Mismatch In Amount Paid To Related Persons U/S 40A(2)(B) Reported In Audit Report & Itr (Iii) Suspicious Sale Transaction In Shares (Penny Stock Tab In Its)”

bogus and added back to the income. Also state, why commission paid for such pre why commission paid for such pre-arranged accommodation entry should not be added arranged accommodation entry should not be added by to your total income. by to your total income. Your written reply should reach this office by 15 hould reach this office by 15th

DICO TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-1(4), KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

Section 14A of the Act by Finance Act, 2022, will be applicable prospectively and also held that disallowance u/s 14A of the Act should not exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee during the year, delete the disallowance and allow Ground No. 5. 4. Another issues raised in Ground Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 is regarding

MAA PAHARI MERCANTILES(P)LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.359/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Maa Pahari Mercantiles Pvt. Ltd.………………………….…....Appellant 9, Weston Street, 214, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700012. [Pan: Aabcm7545A] Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(2), Kolkata……..................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 03, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 26,2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 02.01.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Order Of The Ld. Cit (A) Is Arbitrary, Illegal & Bad In Law. 2. For That Assessment Order Itself Bad In Law In View Of The Fact That The Notice U/S 143(2) Taking Up The Case Under Scrutiny Was Without Jurisdiction.

purchases and sale of the transaction including contract notes, depository statement and bank statement and no defect were found therein. 6. For that the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of Ld. A0 in disallowing Rs.2,90,72,184/- being loss from derivatives relying in the report of DIT, Kolkata in respect of bogus LTCG/STCL/Trading Loss/Valuation loss

EDUCO VENTURES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: the AO.

purchased cheques for cash or some kind of dubious transactions were made with the above-mentioned parties for the alleged bogus advances. The A.O. has merely raised his suspicion about the creditworthiness of the parties in advancing such a huge amount of fund and that to on the basis of his analysis of balance sheet and Profit & Loss

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EDUCO VENTURES PVT LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: the AO.

purchased cheques for cash or some kind of dubious transactions were made with the above-mentioned parties for the alleged bogus advances. The A.O. has merely raised his suspicion about the creditworthiness of the parties in advancing such a huge amount of fund and that to on the basis of his analysis of balance sheet and Profit & Loss