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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

IV, Manicktala Civil\nCentre, Kolkata-700067,\nWest Bengal\n(Respondent)\nAssessee by\n: Shri S.K. Tulsian &\nMs. Puja Somani, ARs\nRevenue by\n: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR\nDate of hearing:\n06.01.2026\nDate of pronouncement:\n20.01.2026\nORDER\nPer Rajesh Kumar, AM:\nThis is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of\nthe National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred

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

17, he stated Page 8 of 74 I.T.A. Nos.: 982, 983, 984 & 2068/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 M/s. Gateway Financial Services Ltd. M/s. Nishit Agarwal Beneficiary Trust Pinky Agarwal Pratik Agarwal Beneficiary Trust that Sri Bal Kishan Sikaria was referred by him to the client for availing the benefit of long term capital gain. ii) Ld. AO observed that SEBI

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

17, he stated Page 8 of 74 I.T.A. Nos.: 982, 983, 984 & 2068/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 M/s. Gateway Financial Services Ltd. M/s. Nishit Agarwal Beneficiary Trust Pinky Agarwal Pratik Agarwal Beneficiary Trust that Sri Bal Kishan Sikaria was referred by him to the client for availing the benefit of long term capital gain. ii) Ld. AO observed that SEBI

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

17, he stated Page 8 of 74 I.T.A. Nos.: 982, 983, 984 & 2068/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 M/s. Gateway Financial Services Ltd. M/s. Nishit Agarwal Beneficiary Trust Pinky Agarwal Pratik Agarwal Beneficiary Trust that Sri Bal Kishan Sikaria was referred by him to the client for availing the benefit of long term capital gain. ii) Ld. AO observed that SEBI

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

17, he stated Page 8 of 74 I.T.A. Nos.: 982, 983, 984 & 2068/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 M/s. Gateway Financial Services Ltd. M/s. Nishit Agarwal Beneficiary Trust Pinky Agarwal Pratik Agarwal Beneficiary Trust that Sri Bal Kishan Sikaria was referred by him to the client for availing the benefit of long term capital gain. ii) Ld. AO observed that SEBI

ACIT, CC-2(1), KOL, KOLKATA vs. SHALIMAR HATCHERIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 546/Kol/2023) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Appellant Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 3Rd Floor, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 -Vs.- Shalimar Hatcheries Ltd.,......................Respondent 46C, Chowringhee Road, Park Street, 17Th Floor, Everest House, Kolkata-700071 [Pan: Aadcs6537J] - A N D - C.O. No. 13/Kol/2023 (In I.T.A. No. 546/Kol/2023) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Shalimar Hatcheries Ltd.,..................Cross Objector 46C, Chowringhee Road, Park Street, Kolkata-700071 [Pan: Aadcs6537J] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 Appearances By: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

17. Shri S.M. Surana, ld. Sr. Advocate has led the arguments on behalf of the assessees. He could not dispute to the proposition that as far as interpretation and scope of section 35(1)(ii) is concerned, there is no dispute. He submitted that neither the ld. Assessing Officer nor the ld. CIT(Appeals) have denied the fact that payments

TARASAFE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-15(2), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

17. Shri S.M. Surana, ld. Sr. Advocate has led the arguments on behalf of the assessees. He could not dispute to the proposition that as far as interpretation and scope of section 35(1)(ii) is concerned, there is no dispute. He submitted that neither the ld. Assessing Officer nor the ld. CIT(Appeals) have denied the fact that payments

M/S H.K.DUTTA & CO.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-37, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

17. Shri S.M. Surana, ld. Sr. Advocate has led the arguments on behalf of the assessees. He could not dispute to the proposition that as far as interpretation and scope of section 35(1)(ii) is concerned, there is no dispute. He submitted that neither the ld. Assessing Officer nor the ld. CIT(Appeals) have denied the fact that payments

M/S COALSALE CO.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-34, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

17. Shri S.M. Surana, ld. Sr. Advocate has led the arguments on behalf of the assessees. He could not dispute to the proposition that as far as interpretation and scope of section 35(1)(ii) is concerned, there is no dispute. He submitted that neither the ld. Assessing Officer nor the ld. CIT(Appeals) have denied the fact that payments

REACHASIA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-29, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

17. Shri S.M. Surana, ld. Sr. Advocate has led the arguments on behalf of the assessees. He could not dispute to the proposition that as far as interpretation and scope of section 35(1)(ii) is concerned, there is no dispute. He submitted that neither the ld. Assessing Officer nor the ld. CIT(Appeals) have denied the fact that payments

ABHILASH TRADECOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

17. Shri S.M. Surana, ld. Sr. Advocate has led the arguments on behalf of the assessees. He could not dispute to the proposition that as far as interpretation and scope of section 35(1)(ii) is concerned, there is no dispute. He submitted that neither the ld. Assessing Officer nor the ld. CIT(Appeals) have denied the fact that payments

HIRALAL BHANDARI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-37(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

17. Shri S.M. Surana, ld. Sr. Advocate has led the arguments on behalf of the assessees. He could not dispute to the proposition that as far as interpretation and scope of section 35(1)(ii) is concerned, there is no dispute. He submitted that neither the ld. Assessing Officer nor the ld. CIT(Appeals) have denied the fact that payments

HIRALAL BHANDARI, LEGAL HAIR OF LATE CHAMPALAL BHANDARI,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-37, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

17. Shri S.M. Surana, ld. Sr. Advocate has led the arguments on behalf of the assessees. He could not dispute to the proposition that as far as interpretation and scope of section 35(1)(ii) is concerned, there is no dispute. He submitted that neither the ld. Assessing Officer nor the ld. CIT(Appeals) have denied the fact that payments

HIRALAL BHANDARI, LEGAL HAIR OF LATE CHAMPALAL BHANDARI,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-37, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

17. Shri S.M. Surana, ld. Sr. Advocate has led the arguments on behalf of the assessees. He could not dispute to the proposition that as far as interpretation and scope of section 35(1)(ii) is concerned, there is no dispute. He submitted that neither the ld. Assessing Officer nor the ld. CIT(Appeals) have denied the fact that payments

REACHASIA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR.-29, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

17. Shri S.M. Surana, ld. Sr. Advocate has led the arguments on behalf of the assessees. He could not dispute to the proposition that as far as interpretation and scope of section 35(1)(ii) is concerned, there is no dispute. He submitted that neither the ld. Assessing Officer nor the ld. CIT(Appeals) have denied the fact that payments

HIRALAL BHANDARI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-37(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

17. Shri S.M. Surana, ld. Sr. Advocate has led the arguments on behalf of the assessees. He could not dispute to the proposition that as far as interpretation and scope of section 35(1)(ii) is concerned, there is no dispute. He submitted that neither the ld. Assessing Officer nor the ld. CIT(Appeals) have denied the fact that payments

PS MAGNUM,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-29, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

17. Shri S.M. Surana, ld. Sr. Advocate has led the arguments on behalf of the assessees. He could not dispute to the proposition that as far as interpretation and scope of section 35(1)(ii) is concerned, there is no dispute. He submitted that neither the ld. Assessing Officer nor the ld. CIT(Appeals) have denied the fact that payments

ABHILASH TRADECOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

17. Shri S.M. Surana, ld. Sr. Advocate has led the arguments on behalf of the assessees. He could not dispute to the proposition that as far as interpretation and scope of section 35(1)(ii) is concerned, there is no dispute. He submitted that neither the ld. Assessing Officer nor the ld. CIT(Appeals) have denied the fact that payments