JYOTI JHA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT (IT), CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 225/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jyoti Jha Acit(It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata Kalani & Co. Chartered Accountants Vs 5Th Floor, Milestone Building Gandhinagar Turn Tonk Road Jaipur - 302015 [Pan : Aezpj7440J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal, Fca Revenue By : Shri Sunil Kr. Agarwala, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/08/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/10/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel – 2, New Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Drp”) Dt. 05/12/2022, Passed U/S 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. The Ld. Ao Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Assessing The Income Under The Head Capital Gain At Rs.41,46,0917- As Against Nil Income Declared By The Assessee On The Basis Of Direction Of Drp Ignoring That The Amount Of Capital Gain Has Been Invested In Purchase Of Flat Before The Time Available For Filing The Return U/S 139 & Thus Eligible For Deduction U/S 54 Of The Act Even If The Sale Deed Was Executed Subsequently. He Has Further Erred In Observing That Assessee Has Failed To Produce Documentary Evidence In Support Of Claim Ignoring That The Same Was Filed Before The Drp. 2. The Ld. Ao Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Making Addition Of Rs. 7,41,700/- In Respect Of Cash Deposit In The Bank Account U/S 68 Of The Act As Per The Direction Of Drp. He Has Further Erred In Holding That Assessee Failed To Produce Documentary Evidence In Support Of Averments In The Affidavit.

capital gain has been invested in purchase of flat before the time available for filing the return u/s 139 and thus eligible for deduction u/s 54 of the Act even if the sale deed was executed subsequently. He has further erred in observing that assessee has failed to produce documentary evidence in support of claim ignoring that the same

NARAYAN SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

gains shown as earned on account of sale/purchase of shares\ntaken through bank account No. CA-3097, Corporation Bank, Karol\nBagh, New Delhi in the name of R.K. Agarwal & Co. by obtaining\nentries for Rs.6,00,000, Rs.7,00,000 and Rs.7,70,000 on 28-2-\n1998, 28-2-1998 and 1-3-1998 respectively. He has directed

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

194/- 5,01,814/- 0 -9,82,475/- 0 -40,88,759/- income u/s115JB 4. Similarly, the details of profit and loss account are also mentioned from page 6 to 9 of the appeal order. It is mentioned in para 5.3 of the assessment order that “Perusal of the financials indicates the poor financial condition and razor thin profits earned/losses

RAIGARH JUTE & TEXTILE MILLS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-8(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.2286/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Raigarh Jute & Textile Mills Ltd...................................................……Appellant 36, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata-700071. [Pan: Aabcr2034B] Vs. Acit, Circle-8(2), Kolkata...............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 16, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 27, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यकसद"य"वारा/ Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.03.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Kolkata (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 That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A)- 15 Erred In Holding That The Assessing Officer Was Justified In Disallowing & Adding Back The Appellant'S Claim For Deduction Of Loss Suffered Of Rs.4,02,00,360/- Suffered By The Appellant In Its Share Trading Business. 2 That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A)-15 Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer Of Invoking The

Section 14A of the Act and in confirming the addition of Rs.87,194/- made by the Assessing Officer thereunder. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the Case, the Order passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-15, is bad in law. 4 That the Appellant craves leave to submit further grounds and to amend, alter or otherwise

M/S. MILLENNIUM STOCK BROKING (P) LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

capital gain and income from other sources. Since the ld. Assessing Officer has not adopted the correct method and not complied with the provisions of section 72(2) of the Act and ld. 8 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 M/s. Millennium Stock Broking (P) Limited CIT(Appeals) has also not considered the contention made by the assessee regarding the correct method

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

gain, etc. Accordingly, the assessee was called upon to furnish the details which were furnished by the assessee by submitting that the ITA Nos.1728 & 1729/KOL/2024 Dollar Holding Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 15-16 and 17-18 amalgamating company as on the date of merger had investments amounting to ₹93,01,00,000/- which was acquired by the assessee company pursuant

DEPUTY COMMISSOENR OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

gain, etc. Accordingly, the assessee was called upon to furnish the details which were furnished by the assessee by submitting that the ITA Nos.1728 & 1729/KOL/2024 Dollar Holding Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 15-16 and 17-18 amalgamating company as on the date of merger had investments amounting to ₹93,01,00,000/- which was acquired by the assessee company pursuant

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

194\nSold out of Investment Purchased During the Year\n11,18,86,806\nTotal\n17,05,60,000\n11.5. It is also important to note that the AO has made enquiries from the\nbuyers of the shares sold by the assessee by issuing summons u/s 131 of\nthe Act who have responded and furnished the required details. Summary\nStatement

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

194\nSold out of Investment Purchased During the Year\n11,18,86,806\nTotal\n17,05,60,000\n11.5. It is also important to note that the AO has made enquiries from the\nbuyers of the shares sold by the assessee by issuing summons u/s 131 of\nthe Act who have responded and furnished the required details. Summary\nStatement

AIROVIENT FANS & SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

capital gain’. At the assessment stage, a disallowance of Rs. 2,59,97,824/- was made u/s 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act') on the finding that the assessee had failed to submit documentary evidences to confirm the genuineness of expenditure booked. It is recorded by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred

M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

capital financing and borrowings, in our view now corporate guarantee transaction also falls under the category of international transactions. In the instant case, undisputedly, the assessee has given corporate guarantee for loan borrowed by its subsidiary/SPV after acquiring the business. Certainly, with the help of such corporate guarantee interest burden of the AE has been lowered. Though, it is contended

SOUTHERN ROAD CARRIERS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 13(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.691/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Southern Road Carriers Ltd..........................................................……Appellant P-9, New Cit Road, Central, Kolkata-700073. [Pan: Aaccs8837N] Vs. Dcit, Circle-13(2), Kolkata...........................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Pransukha, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 15, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 11, 2023 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 03.11.2022 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. That The Cit(A) Has Erred Both In Law & On Facts By Confirming The Addition Of Rs.1,06,74,500/- Made By Assessing Officer For Treating Share Capital Issued As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68. 2. That The Cit(A) Has Like-Wise Erred Both The Law & On Facts By Confirming The Addition Made By Assessing Officer Amounting To Rs.14,60,000/- Being Differential Value Of Sale Consideration & Stamp Duty Value Of The Property Sold.

194,533 9,43,500 Total 21,19,997 65,30,500 The Assessing Officer further noted that on perusal of bank statement of the assessee and that of the aforesaid four shareholders, it revealed that the assessee had made a payment to the shareholders and the I.T.A No.691/Kol/2022 Assessment year: 2015-16 Southern Road Carriers Ltd shareholders consequently from

BALHANUMAN COMMODEAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(4), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13

194 (SC), and (ii) Commissioner of Income-tax vz Independent Media (P) Ltd. [2012] 25 taxman.com 276 (Delhi) Reliance is also being placed on the decision for jurisdictional ITAT in the case of M/s Star Griha Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT and M/s Bisakha Sales Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT wherein Hon'ble ITAT has given detailed findings of modus operandi

M/S PREMIER IRRIGATION ADRITEC (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

194(Bombay) and “Dinesh T. Tailor vs. Tax Recovery Officer”reported in [2010] 192 Taxman 152 (Bombay) and of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of “Maganbhai Hansrajbhai Patel vs. ACIT” reported in [2012] 26 taxmann.com 226 (Gujarat) and of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of “Sanjay Ghai vs. ACIT” reported

ITO, WD.9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S MAHARAJ VINCOM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata……………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…..…..... Respondent 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] C.O. No.6/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…....... Cross-Objector 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] Vs Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata …………..….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 07, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: This Appeal By The Revenue & Corresponding Cross-Objection By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 08.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

capital and share premium received by the assessee during the year under consideration. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A), however, the ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 08.09.2020 has deleted the additions so made by the Assessing Officer. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order

M/S. GOLDLINE DEALERS PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 9(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Rajesh Kumar

gain anything by making an appeal time barred. Therefore, such a Page 5 of 11 I.T.A. No.: 608/KOL/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Goldline Dealers Pvt. Ltd. step can never be taken at the end of the assessee to delay the disposal of the appeals. The demand has already been raised against the assessee and it is an adverse order