MINAKSHI DAS,JALPAIGURI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(3),, SILIGURI

section 148A of the Act\nproceeding was ₹2,19,00,000/- which was three times of the actual\nsum. It was also submitted by the assessee that ₹19,75,000/-\ndeposited in BOB was out of sale proceeds of ornaments. Similarly,\n19,71,000/- was deposited in PNB account were from sale proceeds\nof gold ornaments. However

VIVOG COMMERCIAL LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the connected application for stay (IA No

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

capital gain as exempt and offered the income at the highest rate so there was no escapement of income as alleged by the ld. AO. Thereafter the ld. AR referred to page no.62 of the Paper Book which a copy of the detail statement of ITA No. 1630 & 1631/KOL/2024 Vivog Commercial Ltd; A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 commodity accounts with

VIVOG COMMERCIAL LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the connected application for stay (IA No

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

capital gain as exempt and offered the income at the highest rate so there was no escapement of income as alleged by the ld. AO. Thereafter the ld. AR referred to page no.62 of the Paper Book which a copy of the detail statement of ITA No. 1630 & 1631/KOL/2024 Vivog Commercial Ltd; A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 commodity accounts with

M/S. DIACH CHEMICALS & PIGMENTS PVT. LTD.,HOWRAH vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

capital gains. (ii) All the above aspects do not merit consideration in view of this court specifically faltering the impugned notices & orders, inter alia on the ground of lack of jurisdictional facts. For the same reason, the matter does not warrant remand; the lis should attain finality at the hands of this court itself, all contentions having been argued

M/S. DIACH CHEMICALS & PIGMENTS PVT. LTD.,HOWRAH vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

capital gains. (ii) All the above aspects do not merit consideration in view of this court specifically faltering the impugned notices & orders, inter alia on the ground of lack of jurisdictional facts. For the same reason, the matter does not warrant remand; the lis should attain finality at the hands of this court itself, all contentions having been argued

MANOJ JAIN,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-29(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargshri Rajesh Kumar]

capital gain of Rs. 1,09,35,000/- was added to the income of the assessee in the assessment framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 4. In the appellate proceedings, the assessee challenged the reopening of assessment, however the same was held to be validly done by the AO. 5. The Ld. A.R vehemently submitted before

NEENA BIHANI,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD -49(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

148A(d) of the Act, and in the show cause notice also the\nallegation of escaped income pertained to the purchase of shares, which led to the\nissuance of a notice under section 148. However, the assessment order erroneously\nassessed the case based on long-term capital gains

AJIT KUMAR,BOKARO vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), IT, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

148A(b) of the Act on the following reasons: “In your case information has been received through insight portal from the DDIT(Inv.)-7(4), New Delhi, that during the course of inquiry / investigation into the “tax evasion through bogus Long Term Capital Gains/short term Capital Loss (LTCG/STCL) by way of manipulated trading”, it was seen that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 25(1), KOL, AAYAKAR BHAWAN DAKSHIN vs. SHYAMASREE GHOSH, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

capital gains as bogus. He held that the assessee had duly discharged his onus of proving the genuineness of the share transaction. He, therefore, deleted the addition so made by the AO. 5. Now the revenue, being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), has come in appeal contesting the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting

AHIZANATH MAHFULA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD 32(1), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 568/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Ahizanath Mahfula,…………………………….…Appellant No.6 Flat No. 4A, 4Th Floor, Rutland Gate, 5Th Street, Thousand Lights Chennai-600006, Tamil Nadu [Pan:Blhpm3128E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………...…….Respondent Ward-32(1), Kolkata, Income Tax Office, 10B, Middleton Road, Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Shri Suryanarayanan Sridhar, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Ms. Archana Gupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: August 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 25, 2025 O R D E R

148A of the Act dated 29.03.2022 towards crediting the amount of Rs.57,18,000/- in his bank account from the account of Duraiswamy Ramchandra Sekhara Reddy, and a notice under section 148 was issued on 29.03.2022. Thereafter notices under sections 142(1) on different dates were issued to the assessee and finally show cause notice under section

MRS. NEELAM AGRAWAL ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-37(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. No.756/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mrs. Neelam Agarwal ………. Appellant (Pan: Adcpa3772G) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-37(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, , Addl. Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 22.07.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Revision Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Kolkat-13 [In Short Ld. “Pr. Cit”] Dated 15.03.2024 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act By Ao, Nfac, Delhi Dated 27.03.2022. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Read As Under: “1. For That The Ld. Pcit Erred In Revising The Reassessment Order Which Was Itself Invalid & Bad In Law As Sanction For Reopening Of Assessment Proceedings Was Not Taken From Prescribed Authority As Per Section 151. I.T.A. No. 756/Kol/2024 Neelam Agarwal, Ay : 2015-16

capital gain of Rs.95,75,888/-, Ld. AO issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Assessment proceedings were carried out u/s. 147 read with section 144B of the Act and returned income was accepted. Thereafter, Ld. PCIT assuming jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act called for the assessment record and observed that Ld. AO has not properly carried

M.A. FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 4(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

148A(b) of the Income Tax Act was issued to the assessee on 10.03.2022 by jurisdictional Assessing Officer with prior approval of the specified authority, through ITBA Online Portal. In response, no reply/submission was furnished by the ITA No.: 1273/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 M.A. Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. assessee. Therefore, the case was reopened under section

SANDEEP KUMAR SHAH,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 50(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 07/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sandeep Kumar Shah Income Tax Officer, Ward – P-281, Cit Road, Scheme Vi(M) Vs 50(1), Kolkata Kakurgachi Kolkata - 700054 [Pan : Aprps6509J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, Fca/Amit Agrawal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ankur Goyal, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/10/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/11/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: 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. 30/11/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit (Appeals) U/S 250 Confirming The Additions & Disallowances Made By Learned Assessing Officer Is Contrary To The Law & Facts Of The Case. 2. That The Ld. Cit (Appeals) Erred In Denial Of Exemption Of Long-Term Capital Gain Of Rs. 41,86,458/- U/S 10(38) Of The Act Is Bad In Law & In Facts. 3. That The Learned Cit (Appeals) Failed To Appreciate That The Transaction Of Purchase / Sale Was Genuine & All The Requisite Prescribed Documents Submitted Were In Existence & Hence The Addition / Disallowance Has No Legs To Stand & Deserves To Be Held Ab Initio Null & Void.

capital gain exempted u/s. 10(38) without any basis or adverse finding or documentary evidence. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add/or amend any ground of this appeal.” 3. The assessee has raised the following additional grounds of appeal:- “1. That the initiation of reassessment proceedings by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 50(4), Kolkata by issue of Notice

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BRGD SPONGE & IRON PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal\nof the assessee is allowed

148A(b) of the Act.\nThe assessee filed the return of income in compliance to notice u/s\n148 of the Act on 28.04.2023, declaring the same income as was\ndeclared in the return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act. Thereafter, again a\ncredible information was received by the Id. AO that assessee has\nreceived

BRGD SPONGE & IRON PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal\nof the assessee is allowed

148A(b) of the Act.\nThe assessee filed the return of income in compliance to notice u/s\n148 of the Act on 28.04.2023, declaring the same income as was\ndeclared in the return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act. Thereafter, again a\ncredible information was received by the Id. AO that assessee has\nreceived

SHYAM GREENFIELD DEVELOPER PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

gained in any manner whatsoever, by not filing the application within the period of limitation Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (1987) 1987 taxmann.com 1072 (SC) also deliberated on the expression "sufficient cause" and held that ...The expression 'sufficient cause' employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable