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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2) of the Act by the AO. The\nabove reopening was done after the Id. AO received information from\nthe DIT (Investigation) Kolkata that assessee is beneficiary of\naccommodation entries in the form Long Term Capital Gain. The\nreasons recorded are available at page no. 42 of the paper book,\nwhich has been challenged by the assessee to be vague

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

SHRI RAGHVENDRA MOHTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

gain from sale of shares of Ashika Credit Capital Ltd. of Rs.29,73,500/- for sale of Rs.42,27,500/- which has been claimed as exempt u/s. 10(38) of the Act. Several other disallowance/additions were made towards bogus interest u/s. 69C, interest expenditure attributable to negative capital, u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D and on account of dividend stripping

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

2,95,99,250/- in the script JMD Telefilms Ltd. Thereafter, during the course of assessment proceedings, the learned AO noted that assessee has also claimed the short-term capital gain / short-term loss on transactions with Nivyah Infrastructure and Telecom Services Ltd. a penny Stock Listed on BSE with Script Code (517534) involving trade value

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

2 of 11 I.T.A. No. 756/Kol/2024 Neelam Agarwal, AY : 2015-16 LTD & EML and sold the shares for Rs.97,56,500/- claiming long term 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

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

2) of the Act to record his satisfaction and therefore, the reopening made on the basis of said reasons is invalid and deserved to be quashed. Besides the ld. AR while referring to page no. 162 of the Paper Book which is the approval granted u/s 151 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by the ld. PCIT, Kolkata

DCIT, CC-3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMICUS REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Gain. The AO has himself recorded subsequently that in the course of post search investigation, it was found that the assessee booked bogus LTCG in the A.Y: 2012-13. It is, therefore, evident that the said material does not pertain to F.Y: 2009-10 i.e A.Y: 2010-11. Let us first examine the basis of the information related

M/S. NKA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD. (SUCCESSOR OF M/S. NK ENTERPRISES (P) LTD,SINCE AMALGAMATED),KOLKATA vs. ITO,WD-3(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 1106/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 M/S. Nka Commercialprivate Limited,.........Appellant (Successor Of M/S. Nk Enterprises (P) Ltd. Since Amalgamated) Unit 1304, Plot No. Ai-4, Ergo Building, Ep/Gp Block, Sector-V, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700091 [Pan: Aaccn3159Q] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-3(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, 4Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Ankit Jalan, 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

section 2(47)(v) of the Act as only construction was allowed to be done by the builders after obtaining necessary approvals from competent authorities and, therefore, the capital gain has wrongly been computed and 3 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 M/s.NKA Commercial Private Limited charged to tax. The ld. A.R. relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High

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

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

151 (Kar) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2021 (8) TMI 1322SC ORDER, and (ix) Novo Nordisk India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, (2013 (11) TMI 218 - ITAT BANGALORE. 10. Therefore, in light of the aforesaid submissions, it is humbly prayed that the impugned order ought to be partly set aside, till this extent. In addition, it is humbly prayed

SAROJ EMBRODS PRIVATE LIMITED. ,HOOGHLY vs. DCIT,C.C-3(4), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoysarma]

2). Under that section he had to give reasons for issuing a notice under section 148. He should have some prima facie grounds before him for taking action under section 148. His conclusion that there was a case for investigating the truth of the alleged transactions was not the same thing as saying that there were reasons for the issue

M/S. SAROJ EMBRODS PVT. LTD. ,HOOGHLY vs. DCIT, C.C-3(4), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoysarma]

2). Under that section he had to give reasons for issuing a notice under section 148. He should have some prima facie grounds before him for taking action under section 148. His conclusion that there was a case for investigating the truth of the alleged transactions was not the same thing as saying that there were reasons for the issue

REENA JAIN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-37(1), KOL, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

151 taken from the specified authority i.e., range 37 was not provided in spite of specific requests and even otherwise the same was mechanical in nature. 2 AY: 2015-16 Reena Jain 5. For that the re-assessment is bad in law since reasons of reopening supplied were only the extract not the full exact copy of reasons recorded during

OMPRAKASH DARUKA,RANIGANJ vs. ITO, WARD 3(1), , ASANSOL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.685/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Omprakash Daruka, Vs Ito, Ward-3(1), Asansol C/O S.N.Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street Kolkata-700001 Pan No. : Acqpd 1122 L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Shankar Naskar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R

2) of the Act by the AO. The above reopening was done after the ld. AO received information from the DIT (Investigation) Kolkata that assessee is beneficiary of accommodation entries in the form Long Term Capital Gain. The reasons recorded are available at page no. 42 of the paper book, which has been challenged by the assessee to be vague

ANAND KUMAR PADIA ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WD-5(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

2 of the paperbook. For the sake of ready reference, the same is reproduced below: “An information has been received from the Office of the CCIT, Kolkata-2, Kolkata vide letter No. CCIT-2/Kol/Misc/2015-16/2663- 2664 dated 31.03.2016 regarding information related to Penny Stock (Suspected Long Term Capital Gains /Short Term Capital Loss) in respect of assessees for consideration

TANUJ PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O, WARD-9(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1045/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Tanuj Properties Pvt. Ltd. (Successor To Darshan Tradelink Pvt. Ltd……………….…………....Appellant 6Th Floor, Unit-6A, 238A, A.J.C. Bose Road, L.R. Sarani S.O., Kolkata - 700020 [Pan: Aacct4910B] Vs. Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata…………….................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Bonnine Debarma, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 22, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 19, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.09.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. A) For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Order U/S 147/143(3) Was Passed By The A.O Who Did Not Hold Valid Jurisdiction & Therefore The Impugned Order Being Ab Initio Void Deserves To Be Quashed. B) For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued In The Name Of Non-Existent Entity & In

gain or Short term Capital Loss in their books of account. These transactions are mostly in view of cash of equal amount and commission is charged over and above at certain fixed percentage for providing such accommodation entry. These accommodation entries were taken from various beneficiaries for introducing their unaccounted cash into their books of accounts without paying

TULSHI DEALTRADE PVT. LTD. ,HOWRAH vs. ITO,WD-11(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

2). Under that section he had to give reasons for issuing a notice under section 148. He should have some prima facie grounds before him for taking action under section 148. His conclusion that there was a case for investigating the truth of the alleged transactions was not the same thing as saying that there were reasons for the issue

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

2 of the assessment order, that the reasons wererecorded without application of mind and in a very casual and mechanical manner. The said reasons are extracted below for the sake of ready reference: The assessee is regularly assessed in Ward 50(4), Kolkata. The assessee filed its return of income on 31.03.2014 declaring gross total income

NAVANSH VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

151(1) of the Act. The notice was served on the assessee through email and speed post. In response to the notice u/s 148, the assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2012-13 on 31.03.2019, declaring a total income of Rs. 20,400/-. Subsequently, notice U/S 143(2) and notice u/s 142(1) of the Income