PINKY AGARWAL ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

search and seizure operation u/s 132(4) at his residential premises on 21.01.2015 when in reply to Question No. 10 he mentioned that 246 companies are managed and controlled by him. In reply to Question No. 16, it was stated by him that he was providing accommodation entries in the form of long term capital gain

PRATIK AGARWAL BENEFICIARY TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, C.C.-3(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

search and seizure operation u/s 132(4) at his residential premises on 21.01.2015 when in reply to Question No. 10 he mentioned that 246 companies are managed and controlled by him. In reply to Question No. 16, it was stated by him that he was providing accommodation entries in the form of long term capital gain

CHAINROOP BOHRA.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT CC - XXVII/CAL., KOLKATA

In the result, all these four appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

capital gain arising from the sale of shares of M/s. Continental Fiscal Management Limited and M/s. Swastik Securities & Finance Limited in their returns of income filed for the year under consideration. The said returns filed by all the four assessees were initially processed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A search

SRI SURYA PRAKASH BAGLA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR-VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 398/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Surya Prakash Bagla -Vs- Dcit, Central Circle-Vii, Kolkata [Pan: Aebpb 4558 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gains and other sources like dividend and interest from bank etc. He was one of the working partners of a partnership firm M/s Saltee Estate which was subjected to tax audit u/s 44AB of the Act during the year. As such the due date of filing the return of income for the assessee (being a partner in a firm

DCIT, CC - I, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUNITA KHEMKA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

capital gains. On first appeal, the assessee pleaded that there was a search and seizure operation conducted u/s 132 of the Act on Aparna

M/S GANESHMULL BIJAY SINGH BAID (HUF),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CC - XXVII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

capital gains from transactions in shares of M/s Continental Fiscal Management Limited and M/s Swastik Securities & Finance Ltd. There was a search and seizure

PREMLATA BAID,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CC - XXVII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

capital gains from transactions in shares of M/s Continental Fiscal Management Limited and M/s Swastik Securities & Finance Ltd. There was a search and seizure

KESHAV SARAF,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-15, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Capital Gain (LTCG) under section 10(38). In this context, the AO failed to utilize the information from Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation), Kolkata which had unearthed a large economic scam of tax evasion in July 2013 by conducting search and seizure

THE UNITED PROVINCES SUGAR COMPANY LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 12(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

gains, taxable u/s 45 of the Act and realisation of capital due to improvement of capital asset by way of external realisation of capital due to improvement of capital asset by way of external realisation of capital due to improvement of capital asset by way of external development over a long period of time. r a long period of time

SRI SUSHIL KUMAR MOHTA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC, XXVIII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Smt. Madhumita Roy

seizure operation, jewellery valued at Rs.23,23,211/- was found in the residential premises of the assessee. The said jewellery was explained by the assessee as belonging to him as well as his family members. This explanation of the assessee was not found to be fully satisfactory by the Assessing Officer. He found that some of the items of jewellery

PRAKASHO DEVI SARIA,SILIGURI vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 3(1), SILIGURI, SILIGURI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T. A No. 2360/Kol/2017 A.Y 2014-15 Prakasho Devi Saria Vs. Cit(A), Siliguri Pan: Agzpd611L (Appellant) (Respondent)

gain i.e. Compensation amount so received. The above short term Capital loss of Rs.93,41 ,5101- includes loss from two scripts viz. First Financial Services Limited (Rs.58,74,423) and Rutron International Limited. (Rs.29,81 ,911) .. The AO disallowed the loss are accept of various observation which are enlisted as under: (I) The assessee is not a habitual investor

SURENDRA KUMAR KHATER,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CC - XXVII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy

capital gain and other sources. He filed his original return of income on 20.05.2006 declaring total income of Rs.1,11,150/-. A search and seizure

SRI SURYA PRAKASH BAGLA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narsimha Chary, Jm]

Capital Gain” instead of “Income from other sources”. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), Central – I, Kolkata is not only erroneous but prejudicial to law. 4. The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal

DCIT,CC-VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SURYA PRAKASH BAGLA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narsimha Chary, Jm]

Capital Gain” instead of “Income from other sources”. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), Central – I, Kolkata is not only erroneous but prejudicial to law. 4. The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal

SRI SURYA PRAKASH BAGLA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narsimha Chary, Jm]

Capital Gain” instead of “Income from other sources”. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), Central – I, Kolkata is not only erroneous but prejudicial to law. 4. The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal

KUSUMLATA SONTHALIA ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CENTRAL - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1151/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11)

seizure operation was conducted on 05.03.2015. Subsequent to search, assessment order in case of the assessee has been passed for A.Y.2010-11U/S.153A/143(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the ‘Act’) vide order dated 30/12/2016 by the DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Kolkata hereinafter referred as the AO determining the assessed income at Rs.12,52,580/- as against

SHRI BUDHRAJ AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-43(6) , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the legal issue as well as on merit

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

Gains or Short Term Capital Loss by various beneficiaries. Extensive investigation, including search and seizure / survey action on entry providers

SWARNASATHI ADVISORY SERVICES PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 9(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2006-07

capital gains. For A.Y.2012-13 the assessee filed return of income on 17.02.2013 showing a total income of Rs.3,55,512/-. The said return was accepted and an intimation u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Ac6t, 1961 (Act) was issued. Subsequently the assessment was reopened by a notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 27.03.2015 for making