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

9, 2015, March 18, 2016 and August 26, 2016 are liable to be revoked." In this case, the above four cardinal principles have been ignored by the department. The appellant invested in the shares of the company but there is no reason to doubt the genuineness of the transaction. The addition made by the Ld. AO on account of alleged

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

9, 2015, March 18, 2016 and August 26, 2016 are liable to be revoked." In this case, the above four cardinal principles have been ignored by the department. The appellant invested in the shares of the company but there is no reason to doubt the genuineness of the transaction. The addition made by the Ld. AO on account of alleged

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

9, 2015, March 18, 2016 and August 26, 2016 are liable to be revoked." In this case, the above four cardinal principles have been ignored by the department. The appellant invested in the shares of the company but there is no reason to doubt the genuineness of the transaction. The addition made by the Ld. AO on account of alleged

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

9, 2015, March 18, 2016 and August 26, 2016 are liable to be revoked." In this case, the above four cardinal principles have been ignored by the department. The appellant invested in the shares of the company but there is no reason to doubt the genuineness of the transaction. The addition made by the Ld. AO on account of alleged

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

9, 1977. The completion of the construction of the new building\nwas in March, 1977, although the commencement of construction started in 1976. On\nthese facts, the Karnataka High Court held that it was immaterial that the construction of\nthe new building was started before the sale of the old building. We fully agree with the\nview taken

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]

9 I.T.A. No.1279/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Rajib Chakraborty. Cheque No. 588340 dated 30.12.2014 Rs. 10,00,000/- ICICI Bank The AO observed from the said details filed by the assessee that the payment made on 22.09.2014 towards the purchase of new asset. The objection of AO is that the amount of capital gain which was not utilized for purchase/construction

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

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

M/S. BANDHAN BANK LTD. (ERSTWHILE GHOSH FINANCE LTD),KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-5(1), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2016-17

139(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thus, documents placed on record with or without a covering letter with the intention to remove any omission or wrong statement in the return or record, cannot be ignored simply because a revised return was not furnished unless it is shown that the purpose of the Act is not satisfied

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

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

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

Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 10th February, 2016 for 1y 2013-14 & 20th October, 2016 for A.Y. 2014-15. 02. As the issue raised are common and pertains to same assessee, these appeals have been heard together and being disposed of by this common order for sake of convenience and brevity

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

Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 10th February, 2016 for 1y 2013-14 & 20th October, 2016 for A.Y. 2014-15. 02. As the issue raised are common and pertains to same assessee, these appeals have been heard together and being disposed of by this common order for sake of convenience and brevity

DALMIA LAMINATORS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

139, shall be carried forward and set off under sub-section (1) of section 72 or sub-section (2) of section 73 [or sub-section (2) of section 73A] or sub-section (1) [or sub- section (3)) of section 74 [or sub-section (3) of section 74A]. 9. A bare perusal of the above provision goes to show that

MANOJ JAIN (HUF),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 35(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

139 taxmann.com 352 (Cal) dealing with set of cases with similar fact patterns as narrated above for the present appeals under consideration before us. Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court by taking the report of the Directorate of Investigation of the Department as the basis, gave its observations and findings, which are summarized hereunder. 5.1. There are two category of cases