RAMAUTAR SARAF (HUF),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 59(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

139 in an account in any such bank or institution\nas may be specified in, and utilised in accordance with, any scheme 11 which the\nCentral Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, frame in this\nbehalf and such return shall be accompanied by proof of such deposit; and, for\nthe purposes of sub-section (1), the amount

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

capital gains of Rs.8,90,28,838/-. Accordingly, the grounds of the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed. [ Emphasis provided] 3.1. In the light of the above decision, it is the argument of the Ld. A/R that the facts being identical, the additions made on account of alleged bogus LTCG in the 3 (out of 4) cases under consideration should

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

capital gains of Rs.8,90,28,838/-. Accordingly, the grounds of the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed. [ Emphasis provided] 3.1. In the light of the above decision, it is the argument of the Ld. A/R that the facts being identical, the additions made on account of alleged bogus LTCG in the 3 (out of 4) cases under consideration should

M/S. NISHIT AGARWAL BENEFICIARY TRUST ,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

capital gains of Rs.8,90,28,838/-. Accordingly, the grounds of the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed. [ Emphasis provided] 3.1. In the light of the above decision, it is the argument of the Ld. A/R that the facts being identical, the additions made on account of alleged bogus LTCG in the 3 (out of 4) cases under consideration should

M/S. GATEWAY FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., ,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

capital gains of Rs.8,90,28,838/-. Accordingly, the grounds of the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed. [ Emphasis provided] 3.1. In the light of the above decision, it is the argument of the Ld. A/R that the facts being identical, the additions made on account of alleged bogus LTCG in the 3 (out of 4) cases under consideration should

SAROJ GOENKA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 30(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

gains from transfer of any long-term capital not\nbeing a residential house could claim benefit under the said Section provided, any one of\nthe following three conditions were satisfied; (i) the assessee had within a period of one\nyear before the sale, purchased a residential house; (ii) within two years after the date of\ntransfer of the original capital

SAROJ BAID,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 36(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, J & Dr. Manish Borad

section 10(38) of the Act in respect of long-term capital gain arising sale of equity shares from the listed companies, which were found to be the penny stock companies by both the lower authorities and the long-term capital gain so claimed found to be bogus in nature. We find that recently this Tribunal has adjudicated the similar

SAROJ BAID,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, J & Dr. Manish Borad

section 10(38) of the Act in respect of long-term capital gain arising sale of equity shares from the listed companies, which were found to be the penny stock companies by both the lower authorities and the long-term capital gain so claimed found to be bogus in nature. We find that recently this Tribunal has adjudicated the similar

RAJIB CHAKRABORTY,KOLKATA vs. ITO- WARD-30(3), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 54F can not be denied on the ground that the 10 I.T.A. No.1279/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Rajib Chakraborty. assessee has not deposited the long term capital gain in the specified bank account because the assessee has invested the amount of capital gain for construction of house in the residential property as stated hereinabove nonetheless not depositing the amount

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

139(1) of the Act. Thereafter the statutory notices were duly issued and served upon the assessee along with questionnaire. In compliance vide letter dated 11.03.2022 and 16.03.2022, the assessee furnished the copies of assessment order for A.Y. 2015-16 and tax paid u/s VSVS in form no.4 and form no.5 of the order under VSVS Rules, 2020. The assessee

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]

139 taxmann.com 352 (Calcutta). 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset, submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Coordinate Bench in ITA No. 763/Kol/2022, AY 2013-14 in the 3 Namokar Builders Pvt. Ltd., AY 2013-14 case of M/S Nalanda Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-291), Kolkata wherein the long

M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

capital financing and borrowings, in our view now corporate guarantee transaction also falls under the category of international transactions. In the instant case, undisputedly, the assessee has given corporate guarantee for loan borrowed by its subsidiary/SPV after acquiring the business. Certainly, with the help of such corporate guarantee interest burden of the AE has been lowered. Though, it is contended

SURESH KUMAR PODDAR,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 63(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

capital gain and Rs. 73,60,000/- was added in respect of investment in shares of M/s Shri Ganesh Spinners Limited, controlled and manage Shri Shah. The assessment was framed by the AO was affirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 6. The ld AR vehemently submitted that the assessment framed by the AO u/s 144/147 of the Act vide order

BIMLA DEVI AGRAWAL,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T./D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 34, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

139 is furnished, an order of assessment under section 143 or section 144 may be made at any time before the expiry of 8[twelve] months from the end of the financial year in which such return was furnished. 9[(1B) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (1), where a return is furnished in consequence of an order under clause

SHREE GOVIND PROPERTY & INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

sections 143(2), 139(1), 139(4) and 139(5) of the Act as discussed earlier in detail, and in view of the facts and circumstances as discussed earlier in detail, and in view of precedents of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Goetze (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra] and CIT vs Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. (supra

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

capital gain / loss/trading loss by price rigging and manipulation on the stock exchange platform. The ld. Assessing Officer also referred to the enquiries conducted by the SEBI and the Investigation Wing of the Deptt in which it was found that some brokers have manipulated and rigged the share prices in order to give undue benefit to the beneficiaries

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 56(2)(x)of the Act are not applicable which provides that where the market value of the property is more than the sale consideration received by the assessee then the difference between the two shall be considered. The case of the assessee finds support from the decisions of the coordinate benches in the Sandeep Patil ITA No.924/Bang/2020, John

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

139 taxmann.com352 (Calcutta). ITA Nos. 99 & 100/Kol/2023 Megapode Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd; A.Ys. 13-14 & 14-15 09. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records available on record. The sole grievance of the assessee is against the disallowance of trading loss incurred from purchase/ sale of equity shares of BCSL and CCLII. The assessee has incurred the loss