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

Section 131 to both the brokers from whom shares were purchased and sold and came to the conclusion that share transactions were genuine overlooking the material gathered by the AO from the statements recorded of broker M/s S.K. Sharma & Co. and the other facts and circumstances that volume of transactions of Jaipur Stock Exchange is only 600 shares

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

Section 131 to both the brokers from whom shares were purchased and sold and came to the conclusion that share transactions were genuine overlooking the material gathered by the AO from the statements recorded of broker M/s S.K. Sharma & Co. and the other facts and circumstances that volume of transactions of Jaipur Stock Exchange is only 600 shares

NAMOKAR 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 Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am]

133A of the Act conducted on the assessee. Statutory notices were duly issued and served upon the assessee. It is pertinent to state that the return of income filed by the assessee was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, the AO called upon the assessee to furnish various information/details qua the long term capital gain

DINESH GANGWAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-50(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 1105/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Dinesh Gangwal,.....................................Appellant Olympus Court, Flat 102, Block-B, 4/2, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata-700020 [Pan: Adxpg0498E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-50(1), Kolkata, Income Tax Office, Manicktala, Civil Centre, Uttarapan Complex Ds-Iv, Kolkata-700067 Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Amitava Sen, Addl. Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 26, 2023 O R D E R

capital gain in the assessment framed under section 147 dated 10.09.2021. The ld. CIT(Appeals) affirmed the addition by upholding the order of the ld. Assessing Officer and held that it was penny stock, which was rightly added by the ld. Assessing Officer. 6. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material available on record, I observe from

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. A.R. STANCHEM (P) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

capital gain was a bogus claim. The Hon’ble Court has considered the material collected by the Investigating Wing of the Department on the premises of certain companies,who were manipulating the stocks or indulging any accommodation entry business. If we apply the ratio of this judgment upon these cases, then it would reveal that the benefit of claim under

ASHIKA STOCK BROKING LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

133A of the Act was conducted on 19.05.2015 by 2 I.T.A. Nos.390, 399, 400 & 401/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to2013-14 & 2015-16 Ashika Stock Broking Limited. DDIT(Inv), Unit-2(2), Kolkata at the office/business premises of the assessee and it was found during the course of survey that the assessee company has made transactionsin penny stocks on behalf

ASHIKA STOCK BROKING LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

133A of the Act was conducted on 19.05.2015 by 2 I.T.A. Nos.390, 399, 400 & 401/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to2013-14 & 2015-16 Ashika Stock Broking Limited. DDIT(Inv), Unit-2(2), Kolkata at the office/business premises of the assessee and it was found during the course of survey that the assessee company has made transactionsin penny stocks on behalf

ASHIKA STOCK BROKING LIMITED, KOLKATA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

133A of the Act was conducted on 19.05.2015 by 2 I.T.A. Nos.390, 399, 400 & 401/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to2013-14 & 2015-16 Ashika Stock Broking Limited. DDIT(Inv), Unit-2(2), Kolkata at the office/business premises of the assessee and it was found during the course of survey that the assessee company has made transactionsin penny stocks on behalf

ASHIKA STOCK BROKING LIMITED, KOLKATA,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

133A of the Act was conducted on 19.05.2015 by 2 I.T.A. Nos.390, 399, 400 & 401/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to2013-14 & 2015-16 Ashika Stock Broking Limited. DDIT(Inv), Unit-2(2), Kolkata at the office/business premises of the assessee and it was found during the course of survey that the assessee company has made transactionsin penny stocks on behalf

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

gain, etc. Accordingly, the assessee was called upon to furnish the details which were furnished by the assessee by submitting that the ITA Nos.1728 & 1729/KOL/2024 Dollar Holding Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 15-16 and 17-18 amalgamating company as on the date of merger had investments amounting to ₹93,01,00,000/- which was acquired by the assessee company pursuant

DEPUTY COMMISSOENR OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

gain, etc. Accordingly, the assessee was called upon to furnish the details which were furnished by the assessee by submitting that the ITA Nos.1728 & 1729/KOL/2024 Dollar Holding Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 15-16 and 17-18 amalgamating company as on the date of merger had investments amounting to ₹93,01,00,000/- which was acquired by the assessee company pursuant

HIRALAL BHANDARI, LEGAL HAIR OF LATE CHAMPALAL BHANDARI,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-37, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

capital gain was a bogus claim. The Hon’ble Court has considered the material collected by the Investigating Wing of the Department on the premises of certain companies ,who were manipulating the stocks or indulging any accommodation entry business. If we apply the ratio of this judgment upon these cases, then it would reveal that the benefit of claim under

HIRALAL BHANDARI, LEGAL HAIR OF LATE CHAMPALAL BHANDARI,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-37, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

capital gain was a bogus claim. The Hon’ble Court has considered the material collected by the Investigating Wing of the Department on the premises of certain companies ,who were manipulating the stocks or indulging any accommodation entry business. If we apply the ratio of this judgment upon these cases, then it would reveal that the benefit of claim under

M/S H.K.DUTTA & CO.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-37, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

capital gain was a bogus claim. The Hon’ble Court has considered the material collected by the Investigating Wing of the Department on the premises of certain companies ,who were manipulating the stocks or indulging any accommodation entry business. If we apply the ratio of this judgment upon these cases, then it would reveal that the benefit of claim under

REACHASIA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-29, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

capital gain was a bogus claim. The Hon’ble Court has considered the material collected by the Investigating Wing of the Department on the premises of certain companies ,who were manipulating the stocks or indulging any accommodation entry business. If we apply the ratio of this judgment upon these cases, then it would reveal that the benefit of claim under

HIRALAL BHANDARI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-37(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

capital gain was a bogus claim. The Hon’ble Court has considered the material collected by the Investigating Wing of the Department on the premises of certain companies ,who were manipulating the stocks or indulging any accommodation entry business. If we apply the ratio of this judgment upon these cases, then it would reveal that the benefit of claim under

HIRALAL BHANDARI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-37(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

capital gain was a bogus claim. The Hon’ble Court has considered the material collected by the Investigating Wing of the Department on the premises of certain companies ,who were manipulating the stocks or indulging any accommodation entry business. If we apply the ratio of this judgment upon these cases, then it would reveal that the benefit of claim under

REACHASIA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR.-29, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

capital gain was a bogus claim. The Hon’ble Court has considered the material collected by the Investigating Wing of the Department on the premises of certain companies ,who were manipulating the stocks or indulging any accommodation entry business. If we apply the ratio of this judgment upon these cases, then it would reveal that the benefit of claim under