M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), , KOLKATA

bogus purchases has no\nlegs to stand. Moreover we find that the coal manufacturing requirement\nof the plant are within the acceptable norms and parameters as has been\nprescribed by the government in the manufacturing process of steel. Even if we\nassume that there has been purchase of coal from the Majee Group, then\nthe same might have used

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), , KOLKATA

bogus purchases has no\nlegs to stand. Moreover we find that the coal manufacturing requirement\nof the plant are within the acceptable norms and parameters as has been\nprescribed by the government in the manufacturing process of steel. Even if we\nassume that there has been purchase of coal from the Majee Group, then\nthe same might have used

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

bogus purchases has no\nlegs to stand. Moreover we find that the coal manufacturing requirement\nof the plant are within the acceptable norms and parameters as has been\nprescribed by the government in the manufacturing process of steel. Even if we\nassume that there has been purchase of coal from the Majee Group, then\nthe same might have used

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

bogus purchases has no\nlegs to stand. Moreover we find that the coal manufacturing requirement\nof the plant are within the acceptable norms and parameters as has been\nprescribed by the government in the manufacturing process of steel. Even if we\nassume that there has been purchase of coal from the Majee Group, then\nthe same might have used

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), , KOLKATA

bogus purchases has no\nlegs to stand. Moreover we find that the coal manufacturing requirement\nof the plant are within the acceptable norms and parameters as has been\nprescribed by the government in the manufacturing process of steel. Even if we\nassume that there has been purchase of coal from the Majee Group, then\nthe same might have used

D.C.I.T., CC - 3(1),, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

bogus purchases has no\nlegs to stand. Moreover we find that the coal manufacturing requirement\nof the plant are within the acceptable norms and parameters as has been\nprescribed by the government in the manufacturing process of steel. Even if we\nassume that there has been purchase of coal from the Majee Group, then\nthe same might have used

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC - 3(3),, KOLKATA

bogus purchases has no\nlegs to stand. Moreover we find that the coal manufacturing requirement\nof the plant are within the acceptable norms and parameters as has been\nprescribed by the government in the manufacturing process of steel. Even if we\nassume that there has been purchase of coal from the Majee Group, then\nthe same might have used

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), , KOLKATA

bogus purchases has no\nlegs to stand. Moreover we find that the coal manufacturing requirement\nof the plant are within the acceptable norms and parameters as has been\nprescribed by the government in the manufacturing process of steel. Even if we\nassume that there has been purchase of coal from the Majee Group, then\nthe same might have used

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

bogus purchases has no\nlegs to stand. Moreover we find that the coal manufacturing requirement\nof the plant are within the acceptable norms and parameters as has been\nprescribed by the government in the manufacturing process of steel. Even if we\nassume that there has been purchase of coal from the Majee Group, then\nthe same might have used

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1),, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

bogus purchases has no\nlegs to stand. Moreover we find that the coal manufacturing requirement\nof the plant are within the acceptable norms and parameters as has been\nprescribed by the government in the manufacturing process of steel. Even if we\nassume that there has been purchase of coal from the Majee Group, then\nthe same might have used

MEGAPODE VYAPAAR PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

purchase/ sale of equity shares of BCSL and CCLII. The assessee has incurred the loss of ₹27,22,778/- in trading of equity shares of BCSL and incurred loss of ₹ ₹13,73,451/- in trading of equity shares of CCLII. The total trading loss from these two scripts amounting to ₹40,96,229/- is part of the total loss incurred

MEGAPODE VYAPAAR PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

purchase/ sale of equity shares of BCSL and CCLII. The assessee has incurred the loss of ₹27,22,778/- in trading of equity shares of BCSL and incurred loss of ₹ ₹13,73,451/- in trading of equity shares of CCLII. The total trading loss from these two scripts amounting to ₹40,96,229/- is part of the total loss incurred

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. ABHINANDAN INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of the revenue and the Cross objection of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

bogus profit / loss so as to enable the beneficiary for setting off annual profit in the books or setting off loss in the books to ultimately evade the due taxes. From his inquiry, Ld. AO also noted from the ROC data that Fairdeal Vincom Pvt. Ltd. had been amalgamated and Anand Share Broking Pvt. Ltd. had been struck

ZULA MERCHANDISC PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

loss. 10.5 In case of Global Infratech& Finance Ltd. (‘Global’) shares, it has been explained that the trade was undertaken based on the parameters which clearly set out both the logic and rationale behind the trades. The stock of Global was also in a steep fall when the company purchased it.The shares of Global were purchased in a staggered manner

RAIGARH JUTE & TEXTILE MILLS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-8(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.2286/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Raigarh Jute & Textile Mills Ltd...................................................……Appellant 36, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata-700071. [Pan: Aabcr2034B] Vs. Acit, Circle-8(2), Kolkata...............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 16, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 27, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यकसद"य"वारा/ Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.03.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Kolkata (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 That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A)- 15 Erred In Holding That The Assessing Officer Was Justified In Disallowing & Adding Back The Appellant'S Claim For Deduction Of Loss Suffered Of Rs.4,02,00,360/- Suffered By The Appellant In Its Share Trading Business. 2 That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A)-15 Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer Of Invoking The

bogus to book capital loss which may be set off against the business income of the assessee. He therefore denied the claim of the assessee of short-term capital gains booked by the assessee in trading of shares. 5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). It was submitted

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

purchase price per share at\nwhich the shares were acquired on 22.01.2010 was Rs. 48.95/- while\nthe LTP was only Rs. 38/- as on 22.01.2010. The assessee contends\nthat no set off of loss was carried out during the current year. However,\nthe loss worked out can always be carried forward and set off in the\nsubsequent assessment years

K.R.OVERSEAS PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-(CENTRAL)-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated above

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

purchase value 31.03.2015 value Kailash 1865000 21.46 40024475 4.75 8858750 3,11,65,725/- Auto Finance Ltd Total (ii) 1865000 40024475 8858750 31165725 Total 37931159 (i)+(ii) 12. Now, the above details consist of two types of losses; i) actual loss suffered by the assessee from sale of equity shares of Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. amounting

A R UDYOG,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD 46(3), KOLKATA

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

loss account. The\nassessee has stated that in case the alleged addition on account of\npurchases from these two parties are sustained the gross profit ratio\namounts to 31% which is exceptionally high and is commercially\nunattainable as per prevailing industry norms\n9.\nWe have considered the submissions made. The Ld. CIT(A) relied\nupon the decision