ACIT, CIRCLE - 25, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. MALA ROY & OTHERS, KOLKATA

In the result, this appeal of the In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

151 is to be made after application of e after application of mind. It is not so in this case as mechanical approval is given by an officer who is not mind. It is not so in this case as mechanical approval is given by an officer who is not mind. It is not so in this case as mechanical

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

151 to 595 of the assessee’s paper book. The statement of gains in forex forward contract included in the sales account is at pages 596 to 606 of the assessee’s paper book. The statement of month-wise inventory of stock of cotton is at pages 607- 621 of Assessee’s paper book. 27. We have considered the rival

ANJU DARUKA,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD - 3(1),, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Gain Of ₹11,87,522/- in the scrip of M/s\nBSR Finance & Construction Ltd. and thereafter, again reproducing\nthe details as mentioned i) to iv) concluded that income chargeable to\ntax to the extent of ₹11,86,522/- has escaped assessment within the\nmeaning of Section 147 of the Act. The Id. AR stated that the reasons\nprovided

ACIT, CIRCLLE-34, KOLKATA vs. SUBHAS KUMAR KEDIA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1677/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Acit, Circle-34, Kolkata Vs Subhas Kumar Kedia, 41, N.S.Road, Kolkata Pan No. :Afnpk 9669 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Ms. Shreya Loyalka, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 05.06.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- I) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Erred In Quashing The Order U/S.148A(D) & All Subsequent Proceedings. Ii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Failed To Acknowledge The Fact That The Assesse Had Not Expressed Any Grievance Against The Validity Of Order U/S 148A(D) By Moving Any Writ Petition Which Should Have Been Done In Case Of Any Grievance After Getting The Sald Order U/S.148A(D). Iii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Erred In Quashing The Order When The Ld. Cit(A) Has No Jurisdiction To Deal With The Question Whether The 148A(D) Order Was Passed Validly Or Properly As An Order U/S.148A(D) Is Not An Appealable Order Before Ld. Cit(A) As Per Section 246A.

151(ii) of the Act. The direction is issued with the caveat that the revenue will have liberty to take steps, if deemed necessary, albeit as per law. 14. Needless to add, the rights and contentions of both the sides will remain open, in the event the revenue triggers reassessment proceedings. 15. The above-captioned writ petitions are disposed

ITO, WARD - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TRIBUTE TRADING AND FINANCE LTD.,, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Assessee was allotted 29000 shares of NCL Research & Investment Limited through preferential allotment at the rate of Rs. 275 per share. The purchase consideration was paid by account payee cheque and the transaction was reflected in the books of accounts of the assessee for the previous year ending

ITO, WARD - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TRIBUTE TRADING AND FINANCE LTD.,, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Assessee was allotted 29000 shares of NCL Research & Investment Limited through preferential allotment at the rate of Rs. 275 per share. The purchase consideration was paid by account payee cheque and the transaction was reflected in the books of accounts of the assessee for the previous year ending

SRI SUBRATA BANERJEE ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 51(1) , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Assessee was allotted 29000 shares of NCL Research & Investment Limited through preferential allotment at the rate of Rs. 275 per share. The purchase consideration was paid by account payee cheque and the transaction was reflected in the books of accounts of the assessee for the previous year ending

WHITEPIN TIE-UP LTD.,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WD-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2011-12

Capital Gain of Rs.4,51,20,300.00 which was claimed as exempted income u/s. 10(34) & 10(38) of the Act respectively. The assessee made the disallowance of the expenses incurred in relation to such exempted income under section 14A of the Act for Rs.66,99,516.00 only. However the AO was not satisfied with the disallowance made

SHRI SAROJ KUMAR PODDAR,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S.Godara, Jm] Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Saroj Kumar Poddar -Versus- D.C.I.T., Circle-6(1) Kolkata Kolkata (Pan: Aftpp 2386 N) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant: Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Counsel, Sri Ronak G.Doshi & Shri A.K.Gupta, Ar For The Respondent: Shri Girish Dave, Special Counsel & Shri P.K.Srihari, Cit Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2018. Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2018 Order Per J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-(A)-2, Kolkata Dated 10.07..2017 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act ‘) Relating To A.Y. 2014-15, Wherein The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘ Act’ ) Dated 30.12.2016 Was Confirmed.

section 55(2)(a) are applicable in the present case. as there is a transfer of an alleged 'right to carry on business' by the Appellant by virtue of the non compete agreement entered into by the Appellant on 18 January 1996, with Gillette company. USA. ITA No.1695/Kol/2017 Shri Saroj Kumar Poddar A.Y.2014-15 19 The Appellant submitted that

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

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

Section 68 suggests that there has to be ere it of amounts in the books maintained by an assessees; such credit has to be of a sum during the previous year; and the assessees offer no explanation about that nature and source of such credit found in the books; or the explanation offer by assessees offers no explanation" means where

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

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

Section 68 suggests that there has to be ere it of amounts in the books maintained by an assessees; such credit has to be of a sum during the previous year; and the assessees offer no explanation about that nature and source of such credit found in the books; or the explanation offer by assessees offers no explanation" means where

1.INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. ANUSHREYA INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Anushreya Investment Private Kolkata Limited P-7, Chowringhee Square, 5Th Floor, Mangalam-A, 24 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan Hemanta Basu Sarani, Vs. Poorva, Kolkata-700069, Kolkata-700001, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacca3658B Assessee By : Shri N.S. Saini, Ar Revenue By : Shri Susanta Saha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 31.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

Section 151 of the Act’. The learned AO prayed that the learned PCIT before according approval u/s 151 of the Act has to record his satisfaction how the proposal move before him justifies the re-opening of assessment and how he has satisfied that it is a fit case for issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act. The learned

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

ITO, WARD - 40(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. SHRI SURESH CHAND GUPTA, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2014-15 Ito Ward-40(2) V/S. Shri Suresh Chand Gupta 2Nd Floor, 3 16, Tara Chand Dutta Government Place Street, Kolkata-700073 West,Kolkata-700001 [Pan No.Aczpg 0724 C] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Ajoy Kr. Singh, Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 26-11-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 26-12-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Kolkata’S Order Dated 20.04.2017, Passed In Case No.10190/Cit(A)-12/Kol/Ward-40(2)/2016-17, In Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Ground Raised In The Instant Appeal Pleads That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Reversing The Assessing Officer’S Action Treating Assessee’S Alleged Long Term Capital Gains (Ltcg) Of ₹3,84,74,960/- To Be Bogus In The Nature Of Unexplained Cash Credits U/S 68 Of The Act. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion Qua The Impugned Sole Issue Reads As Under:- “3.2 I Have Perused The Observations & Findings Contained In The Assessment Order. I Have Also Considered The Submission Of The Appellant Along With Paper Book Filed By Ld. A/R Which Contained, Inter-Alia, The Following Documents:-

151 (S C) had held that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. In the case of CIT(Central), Kolkata vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull reported in 87 ITR 349, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, the onus to prove that the apparent is not the real is on the party who claims

SHRI UDIT AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. DCIT(IT)-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed accordingly

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2014-15 Shri Udit Agarwal V/S. Dcit (It)-2(1), 110, 3, Madan Mohan Burman Shanti Pally, Kolkata- Street, Kolkataa-007 107 [Pan No.Ahupa 0424 B] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 03-12-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 26-12-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22,Kolkata’S Order Dated 10.05.2017 Passed In Case No.71/Cit(A)/22/Kol/14-15/16-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Learned Representatives. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Ground Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Treating Its Long Term Capital Gains (Ltcg) Of ₹64,99,391/- To Be Unexplained Cash Credits U/S 68 Of The Act. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reads As Under:- ”06. Decision: 1. I Have Carefully Considered The Action Of The Ld. Ao In Treating The Amount Of Rs.67,24,391/- Being Claimed By The Appellant To Be Proceeds Of Shares Sold To Be Ltcg & Claimed As Exempt. The Findings Of The Ld. Ao Are Based On The Information Being Supplied By The Investigation Wing Of The Department At Kolkata. I Have Also Carefully Examined The Submissions Of The Appellant, Wherein

section 68, where any sum Is found credited In the books of the assessee for any previous year, the same may be charged to Income- tax as the Income of the assessee of that previous veer if the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source thereof Is, In the opinion of the Assessing Officer, not satisfactory

SUDHA SURANA,NEW DELHI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 61(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Ito Ward-61(3) Bamboo Villa, Sudha Surana Central Revenue Building, C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, F-26/124, Sector 7, Rohini, Vs. New Delhi-110085 Kolkata-700014, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Adepb5526F Assessee By : Dr. Kapil Goel, Ar Revenue By : Shri H. Robindro Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.04.2025

section 148 of the Act has been made by the ld. AO without any application of mind and also without there being any valid approval given by the competent authority. The ld. AR referring to the reasons recorded which are extracted on page no.2 of the assessment order submitted that even the amount mentioned in the reasons recorded were different

ITO, WARD - 40(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. SHRI VISHWANATH GUPTA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

capital gains. It is submitted by Mr. Prithu Dudharia, learned advocate for the revenue that the records from the Calcutta Stock Exchange shows that the name of the assessee is not appearing in respect of the transactions-in-question. The tribunal found that the chain of transaction entered into by the assessee have been proved, accounted for, documented and supported

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