UTTAM DAS,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147 of the Act by making an addition of Rs. 1,77,391/- as bogus transaction. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee had appeared before the ld. CIT(A) and the assessee filed written submission in the course of hearing. It was contended before the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee furnished the reply by India Post

SHRI UDIT AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. DCIT(IT)-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed accordingly

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2014-15 Shri Udit Agarwal V/S. Dcit (It)-2(1), 110, 3, Madan Mohan Burman Shanti Pally, Kolkata- Street, Kolkataa-007 107 [Pan No.Ahupa 0424 B] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 03-12-2018 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 Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22,Kolkata’S Order Dated 10.05.2017 Passed In Case No.71/Cit(A)/22/Kol/14-15/16-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Learned Representatives. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Ground Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Treating Its Long Term Capital Gains (Ltcg) Of ₹64,99,391/- To Be Unexplained Cash Credits U/S 68 Of The Act. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reads As Under:- ”06. Decision: 1. I Have Carefully Considered The Action Of The Ld. Ao In Treating The Amount Of Rs.67,24,391/- Being Claimed By The Appellant To Be Proceeds Of Shares Sold To Be Ltcg & Claimed As Exempt. The Findings Of The Ld. Ao Are Based On The Information Being Supplied By The Investigation Wing Of The Department At Kolkata. I Have Also Carefully Examined The Submissions Of The Appellant, Wherein

bogus Long Term Capital Gain made by the assessee during the previous year. It is apparent that, in the grab of alleged LTCG, the assessee earned exempt income of Rs.67,24,391/- and huge amounts were brought into the books without payment of any taxes. I find it pertinent to mention here that In CIT Vs NR Portfolio

THE INDRA COMPANY LIMITED(AS SAUMYA TRADE & FISCAL SERVICES P. LTD. MERGED INTO THE INDRA CO. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 12(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act,\n1956, pursuant to which the equity shares of the issuer were\nlisted, as the case may be; or\n(b) the average of the weekly high and low of the volume weighted\naverage prices closing prices of the related equity shares quoted\non the recognised stock exchange during the period shares have

M/S. FOUNTAIN VANIJYA PVT. LTD (NOW MERGED WITH M/S. ASHIANA GOODS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-13(1), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, J & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 400/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 M/S. Fountain Vanijya Pvt. Limited,.........Appellant (Now Merged With M/S. Ashiana Goods Pvt. Ltd.), Ganesh Complex, Nh-6, Bombay Road, Raghudevpur, Howrah-711322 [Pan: Aabcf1407E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,...............................Respondent Ward-13(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit (Sr. D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 03, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 12Th, 2023 O R D E R

section 148 of the Act was issued for recording following reasons:- “The assessee company filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2012-13 on 22.9.2012 declaring total loss of Rs.2,22,391/-. The said return was processed vide order u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 21.02.2013. Subsequently, an information was received that the assessee has, during

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

MR. SANJIV SHROFF,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 36, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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]

bogus transactions in the shares of KAFL also did not implicate the assessee and/or his broker. It is also a matter of record that the assessee furnished all evidences in the form of bills, contract notes, demat statements and the bank accounts to prove the genuineness of the transactions relating to purchase and sale of shares resulting in LTCG. These

SMT. DIPIKA SHROFF,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 34(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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]

bogus transactions in the shares of KAFL also did not implicate the assessee and/or his broker. It is also a matter of record that the assessee furnished all evidences in the form of bills, contract notes, demat statements and the bank accounts to prove the genuineness of the transactions relating to purchase and sale of shares resulting in LTCG. These

ACIT, CIRCLE - 36, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. SMT. SHRUTI MOHTA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year:2013-14

391 ITR 218. In view of the forgoing and respectfully following the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional Calcutta High Court and Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, I am of the considered view that the Ld. wrongly invoked and applied Rule 8D to shares held by way of stock-in-trade. ITA No.2417, 2418 & 2469/K/17

SHRUTI MOHTA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 36, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year:2013-14

391 ITR 218. In view of the forgoing and respectfully following the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional Calcutta High Court and Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, I am of the considered view that the Ld. wrongly invoked and applied Rule 8D to shares held by way of stock-in-trade. ITA No.2417, 2418 & 2469/K/17

SHRUTI MOHTA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 36, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year:2013-14

391 ITR 218. In view of the forgoing and respectfully following the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional Calcutta High Court and Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, I am of the considered view that the Ld. wrongly invoked and applied Rule 8D to shares held by way of stock-in-trade. ITA No.2417, 2418 & 2469/K/17