DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTHAN ENGINEERING & INDUSTRIES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.952/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

bogus since it is common knowledge that sales of goods cannot taken place without purchase of goods in the first place. So, therefore, in the light of the evidences adduced to prove the genuineness of the transactions and when the fact remains that the sales has been accepted by the Assessing Officer in totality, the action of the Assessing Officer

M/S. HINDISTHAN ENGINEEING & INDISTRIES LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -5 KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.952/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

bogus since it is common knowledge that sales of goods cannot taken place without purchase of goods in the first place. So, therefore, in the light of the evidences adduced to prove the genuineness of the transactions and when the fact remains that the sales has been accepted by the Assessing Officer in totality, the action of the Assessing Officer

M/S BIHARI LAL MALPANI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 43(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey & Shri M. Balaganeshi.T.A. No.527/Kol/2017 (Assessment Year 2013-14) M/S Bihari Lal Malpani Ito, Ward-43(1), Kolkata. -Vs- [Pan :Adupm 6438 R]

set-off their profit. The methodology used was the same. The beneficiary who wants loss buys the share at high rate from the beneficiary who is taking LTCG. ' In para 2.10 the AO has listed names of 84 scripts furnished by the investigation ring which are alleged to be used for providing bogus accommodation entries of loss or gain

SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR TEKRIWAL,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 10, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, these three appeals of three assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1134/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11)

setting aside the reassessment order passed by the Ld. AO whereas the said order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 4. For that the reassessment order having been passed by the Ld. AO after due application of mind whereby the Ld. AO accepted the sale and held that there cannot be any sales without corresponding purchase

BINOD KUMAR TEKRIWAL HUF,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 10, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, these three appeals of three assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1134/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11)

setting aside the reassessment order passed by the Ld. AO whereas the said order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 4. For that the reassessment order having been passed by the Ld. AO after due application of mind whereby the Ld. AO accepted the sale and held that there cannot be any sales without corresponding purchase

SANDIP KUMAR TEKRIWAL HUF,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 10, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, these three appeals of three assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1134/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11)

setting aside the reassessment order passed by the Ld. AO whereas the said order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 4. For that the reassessment order having been passed by the Ld. AO after due application of mind whereby the Ld. AO accepted the sale and held that there cannot be any sales without corresponding purchase

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

MANGILAL JAIN ,DARJEELING vs. ITO, WARD - 3(3), DARJEELING , DARJEELING

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2014-15 Mangilal Jain Income Tax Officer, बनाम / C/O Advocate Pradip Ward-3(3), Nr. Lal V/S. Lakhotia, 2Nd Floor, Metro Kothi, Darjeeling Plaza, Sf Road, Siliguri-734005 [Pan No.Afkpj 4178 D] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Dhiraj Lakhotia, A.R अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri C.J. Singh, Jcit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 05-03-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 15-05-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Siliguri’S Order Dated 22.03.2018 Passed In Case No.69/Cit(A)/Slg/2016-17, Involving Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Grievance Raised In The Instant Appeal Seeks To Reverse Both The Lower Authorities Findings Treating His Short Term Capital Loss (Stcl) Arising From Sale Of Shares After Payment Of Security Transaction Tax (Stt), Amounting To ₹1,92,320/- As Bogus Unexplained Cash Credits. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reads As Under:- “4. Decision :- I Have Perused The Assessment Order, The Grounds Of Appeal & The Submissions Made By The Ld.. A/R On Behalf Of The Appellant. My Observations & Findings Are As Under :- 4.1. The Present Appeal Emanates After Disallowing Rs. 11,92,320/- Arising Out Of Shares Transaction & Treated The Same As Bogus. In This Case The Assessee Purchased 32000 Shares Of Global Infratech & Finance Ltd. Through Eureka Stock & Shares Broking Services Limited @ Rs. 77.37 Per Share Aggregating To Rs. 24,79,714/- On 11.02.2014 & Further Sold The

purchase and sale of shares had been effected to create bogus loss under the head STCG. Such transactions are not genuine and natural transactions, but preconceived transactions, resulting in creation of bogus loss. Such transactions are mutually self-serving to the parties to the transactions. I have come to conclude on the basis of above analysis, documentary evidences, circumstantial evidences

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

GANAPATI DEVELOPERS ,HOWRAH vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-47, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

loss to the revenue. Therefore, I have reason to believe that by way of claiming bogus purchases of Rs. 19,29,589/-, the assesses had reduced income to this extent; hence the income of Rs. 19,29,589/- chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 10. A perusal

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

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

bogus Short Term Capital loss made by the assessee during the previous year. It is apparent that, in the grab of alleged STCG, the assessee was trying to set off actual incomes against this manufactured loss. 2. The Ld. AO has very carefully analyzed the information received from the Investigation Wing, and has recorded the noteworthy features of the Company

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

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

bogus Short Term Capital loss made by the assessee during the previous year. It is apparent that, in the grab of alleged STCG, the assessee was trying to set off actual incomes against this manufactured loss. 2. The Ld. AO has very carefully analyzed the information received from the Investigation Wing, and has recorded the noteworthy features of the Company

M/S. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result Ground no. 1 & 3 of the revenue are allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd…….............................................................……………………..Appellant 27, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aaecs 0765 R] Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-12 Kolkata……...............................…….…..Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13

bogus bills, that the assessee had asked for cross examination of the supplier but same was not given, that the AO had not supplied the copy of the statements of Shiv Sagar to the assessee, that in the books of accounts of the assessee all the purchases and sales were recorded, that payments were made through banking channels, that

M/S. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result Ground no. 1 & 3 of the revenue are allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd…….............................................................……………………..Appellant 27, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aaecs 0765 R] Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-12 Kolkata……...............................…….…..Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13

bogus bills, that the assessee had asked for cross examination of the supplier but same was not given, that the AO had not supplied the copy of the statements of Shiv Sagar to the assessee, that in the books of accounts of the assessee all the purchases and sales were recorded, that payments were made through banking channels, that

ACIT, CIRCLE-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result Ground no. 1 & 3 of the revenue are allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd…….............................................................……………………..Appellant 27, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aaecs 0765 R] Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-12 Kolkata……...............................…….…..Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13

bogus bills, that the assessee had asked for cross examination of the supplier but same was not given, that the AO had not supplied the copy of the statements of Shiv Sagar to the assessee, that in the books of accounts of the assessee all the purchases and sales were recorded, that payments were made through banking channels, that

ACIT, CIRCLE-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result Ground no. 1 & 3 of the revenue are allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd…….............................................................……………………..Appellant 27, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aaecs 0765 R] Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-12 Kolkata……...............................…….…..Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13

bogus bills, that the assessee had asked for cross examination of the supplier but same was not given, that the AO had not supplied the copy of the statements of Shiv Sagar to the assessee, that in the books of accounts of the assessee all the purchases and sales were recorded, that payments were made through banking channels, that

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