RITA GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR.2(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

6. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties. Assailing the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the lower authorities erred on facts and in law in treating the long term capital loss incurred on sale of listed shares on the same footing as that of long

I.T.O WD - 2(3),KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S LGW LTD., NORTH 24 PARGANAS

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

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2009-10

133(6) of the Act alone ought to have been considered. In our view the submission made by the revenue cannot be accepted. This is because the payment in question has been made by cheques and TDS has also been made by the assessee. The annexures to the letter of Shri Laxmikant Josh (HUF) dated 15.12.2011 which is at pages

PURUSHOTTAM DAS AGARWAL ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 35(1) , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Years :2012-13 Soumitra Choudhury V/S. Acit, Circle-12 28C, Satish Mukherjee 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Road, Kolkata-700026 Kidwai Road, [Pan No.Acnpc 4627 Q] Kolkarta-16 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Miraj D Shah, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sankar Halder, Jcit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 13-03-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing Assessment Year :2015-16 Purushottam Das Agarwal V/S. Income Tax Officer, C/O Balaji Enterprises, Ward-35(1), Aayakar 83/85 N.S. Road, Ground Bhawan Porva, 110, Floor, Kolkata Shantipally, Kokata- [Pan No.Actpa 9138 Q] 107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Subash Agarwal Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sankar Halder, Jcit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 14-03-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 15-03-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- These Two Assessees Have Filed Their Instant Appeal(S) For Assessment Year(S) 2012-13 & 2015-16 Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax

Capital Gains (LTCG) as exempt u/s 10(38) amounting to ₹70,25,200/- and ₹32,11,451/-; respectively to be unexplained cash credits u/s 68, involving proceedings u/s 143(3), r.ws. 147 and Sec. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. We have heard the parties reiterating their respective stands. Relevant case file

SOUMITRA CHOUDHURY ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 22 , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Years :2012-13 Soumitra Choudhury V/S. Acit, Circle-12 28C, Satish Mukherjee 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Road, Kolkata-700026 Kidwai Road, [Pan No.Acnpc 4627 Q] Kolkarta-16 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Miraj D Shah, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sankar Halder, Jcit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 13-03-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing Assessment Year :2015-16 Purushottam Das Agarwal V/S. Income Tax Officer, C/O Balaji Enterprises, Ward-35(1), Aayakar 83/85 N.S. Road, Ground Bhawan Porva, 110, Floor, Kolkata Shantipally, Kokata- [Pan No.Actpa 9138 Q] 107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Subash Agarwal Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sankar Halder, Jcit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 14-03-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 15-03-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- These Two Assessees Have Filed Their Instant Appeal(S) For Assessment Year(S) 2012-13 & 2015-16 Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax

Capital Gains (LTCG) as exempt u/s 10(38) amounting to ₹70,25,200/- and ₹32,11,451/-; respectively to be unexplained cash credits u/s 68, involving proceedings u/s 143(3), r.ws. 147 and Sec. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. We have heard the parties reiterating their respective stands. Relevant case file

GULMOHAR DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-9(2), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2009-10

gain time then the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning delay the Could should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a looser and he too would have incurred quiet a large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. SHRI SAROJ KUMAR PODDAR, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble]

6) of the Act read with the ITAT Rules, 1963 [ herein after the Rules]. He also contends that the appeal has to be rejected by the Tribunal even under the Rules]. He also contends that the appeal has to be rejected by the Tribunal even under the Rules]. He also contends that the appeal has to be rejected

BEGRAJ AGARWAL & ORS HUF,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 34(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ito, Ward 34(1), Kolkata Begraj Agarwal & Ors. Huf Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, 110, Diamond Heritage, Unit No.609, Strand Road, Kolkata-700001 Shantipally, Kolkata-700107, Vs. West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabhb8295F Assessee By : Shri S.M. Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Amuldeep Kaur, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.01.2025

section 148 of the Act is bad in law and is invalid as the reopening has been made on the wrong premises that Long Term Capital Gain of ₹94,38,891/- on sale of shares of Sulbha Engineering was not returned by the assessee during the year nor any money was credited qua the shares of Sulbha Engineering. Therefore, very

ITO, WARD 35(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SMT. NALINI BOTHRA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1405/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ito, Ward-35(2), Kolkata -Vs- Smt. Nalini Bothra. [Pan: Adrpb 5103 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2(47) of the Act, he held that property was acquired by the assessee only on 13.5.2013 and the said property was transferred on 10.9.2013. Since the property was an immovable property which was held by the assessee only for 4 months under her possession, so the assessee’s claim of long term capital gain from transfer of such

ABC INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Abc India Limited Dcit, Circle 11(1) 40/8, Ballygunj, Circular Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Chowringhee Kolkata, West Bengal-700019 Square, Kolkata-700069 Vs. West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacca2035J Assessee By : Shri S.K. Pransukhka, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.04.2026

133(6) of the Act, as noted in the foregoing paragraph. Therefore, even though the Deed of Conveyance was executed on 11.03.2016, the plot of land was already transferred to the purchaser in the financial year 2009-10 and thus, for all intents and purposes, the land was transferred in the assessment year 2010-11. 13. We find that

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

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

section 69C of the Act. ITA No.1254-1255/Kol/2018 A.Y.2014-15 Navin Kr. Kajaria & Smt. Sushila Devi Kajaria Vs. ACIT Cir-35/36 Kol Page 17 6. Commodity loss During the course of assessment proceedings, it is seen that the assessee had booked commodity loss to the tune of Rs.2,99,424/- for FY 2013-14. For verification of the same, notices

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

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

section 69C of the Act. ITA No.1254-1255/Kol/2018 A.Y.2014-15 Navin Kr. Kajaria & Smt. Sushila Devi Kajaria Vs. ACIT Cir-35/36 Kol Page 17 6. Commodity loss During the course of assessment proceedings, it is seen that the assessee had booked commodity loss to the tune of Rs.2,99,424/- for FY 2013-14. For verification of the same, notices

ACIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S R. K. COMMERCIAL LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1330/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2007-08)

capital gain of the assessee. The AO should have issued notices and summons to M/s RFL and ACPL under section 133(6

SAMRAT FINVESTORS PRIVATE LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD- 10(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 840/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Samrat Finvestors Private Limited Income Tax Officer, Ward – 10(2), 20/1, Maharshi Debendra Vs Kolkata 2Nd Floor, Room No. 13A Kolkata - 700007 [Pan : Aadcs4698G] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/R Revenue By : Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dt. 27/06/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee In The Instant Appeal Has Raised Two Effective Issues In The Various Grounds Before Us Which Are Summed Up As Under:- (I) That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.3,98,50,208/- As Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Alleged Bogus Loss In Share Trading & In F&O Segment. (Ii) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.11,58,944/- As Made By The Assessing

section 133(6) of the Act to the purchaser/sellers or stock exchange or brokers, has merely relied on the investigation wing/SEBI reports. We find no whisper in the assessment order disbelieving the evidences filed by the assessee or rejecting the same and the Assessing Officer has merely proceeded on an assumption that the transactions entered into by the assessee during

SURYA PRAKASH TOSHNIWAL HUF,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-41(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2005-06 Surya Prakash Toshniwal V/S. Income Tax Officer, Huf, C/O. Narendra Goyal Ward-41(3), 3 & Co., 16, N.S. Road, 2Nd, Government Place, Floor, Kolkata-700 001 Kolkata-7001 [Pan No.Aaghs 7032 G] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

capital gain of the assessee. The AO should have issued notices and summons to M/s RFL and ACPL under section 133(6

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 763/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Nalanda Builders Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata 5, Sree Charan Sarani Vs Bally Howrah – 711201 (West Bengal) [Pan : Aabcn7736Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dt. 23/11/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Issues Raised In Ground Nos. 2 To 4 Is Against The Confirmation Of Addition As Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Difference Between The Value Taken By The Assessee & The Fair Market Value (Fmv) U/S 50C Of The Act. 3. The Facts In Brief Are That During The Year, The Assessee Sold Two Flats For An Aggregate Consideration Of Rs.3,00,00,000/- & Accordingly Addition Of Rs.3,26,37,314/- Was Made To The Income Of The Assessee. In 2

section 133(6) of the Act to the purchaser/sellers or stock exchange or brokers, has merely relied on the investigation wing/SEBI reports. We find no whisper in the assessment order disbelieving the evidences filed by the assessee or rejecting the same and the Assessing Officer has merely proceeded on an assumption that the transactions entered into by the assessee during

M/S NHAI,SILIGURI vs. A.C.I.T (TDS),SILIGURI, SIKKIM

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed partly for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2005-06

section 50C of the Act. But for the purpose of deduction u/s. 54EC, the sale value would be taken at ₹18.99 lacs which is the actual sale consideration. It is also important to note that the Ld. AR at the time of hearing has also relied on the order of Nila V Shah (supra) and Ld. CIT(A) has also

AMRITRASHI INFRA(P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.C.I.T.-4, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2012-13 Amritrashi Infra Private Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax- (Pan: Aakca2544E) 4, Kolkata.

133(6) of the Act (refer paper book 2 page 2 to 352) and then he carried out the verification of documents submitted by the share applicants/investors for proving the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness and also their source of fund to invest in the assessee company. Thereafter, the second AO by order dated 07/12/2016 disallowed an amount

ITO WARD-10(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S AUM CAPITAL MARKET PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy& Sri S.S. Godara] I.T.A. No. 302/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(4), Kolkata..………....................................….….……………….…......Appellant M/S. Aum Capital Market Pvt. Ltd.....................…..…….……………………………………………..……Respondent 5, Lower Rowdon Street Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan: Aaaco 7624 B] Appearances By: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 7Th,2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 28Th,2018 Order Per S.S. Godara, Jm :- This Revenue’S Appeal For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 4, Kolkata’S Order Dated 18/11/2016 Passed In Case No. Ita No.1125/Cit(A)-4/Range-10/Kol/14015 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘Act’).

133/-; respectively totalling to Rs.2,81,899/-. 3.1. The assessee preferred appeal. Its case before the CIT(A) was that it had rather earned interest income of Rs.10,88,543/- against interest expenditure of Rs.1,00,525/- as per schedule 1 of P&L Account. It made out a case of positive interest therefore. Case law of DCIT vs. Trade