MITUL PRAVINCHANDRA MALANI, ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 33, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed while the penalty of ₹9,560/- imposed is hereby cancelled

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2014-15

section 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated by the Ld. AO for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and penalty show cause notice was issued to the appellant. Consequently, penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was passed on 28.06.2017 levying a penalty of Rs. 9,560/- against the assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income

EQUITABLE MARKETING ASSOCIATION,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-30, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.1226/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Equitable Marketing Association…………………… ........................……Appellant 82, Baburam Ghosh Road, Tollygunge, Kolkata – 700040. [Pan: Aaaae0345D] Vs. Acit, Circle-30, Kolkata…...................…................…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. S. Gupta, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 10, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 07, 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 22.09.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘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 Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Is Arbitrary, Bad In Law & Facts & The Ld. Cit(A), Erred In Confirming The Same In Part. 2. That The Ld. A.O Erred In Making An Addition Of Rs.1,36,67,806/- By Invoking Sec. 50C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Same In As Much As In View Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case No Such Addition U/S 50C Was At All Called For.

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, change and/or modify any of the grounds of appeal at or before hearing of the appeal and claim further relief or reliefs which is necessary for the ends of justice.” 3. Though the assessee has raised various grounds of appeal, however

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

AMITABHA SANYAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-58(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the penalty levied is hereby deleted

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2011-12 Amitabha Sanyal, Income Tax Officer, 108B, Block-F, New Alipore, Ward – 58(4), Kolkata, Kolkata – 700053 Vs Aayakar Bhawan, (Pan: Aleps2352J) Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata - 700014 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Capital Gain (as per return) Rs.2,275,000/- Gross Total Income Rs.2,382,488/- Less: Deduction under Chapter VI-A Rs. 7,139/- Total Income Rs.2,375,349/- Assessed Total Income Rounded off to Rs.2,375,350/- 9 Amitabha Sanyal; AY: 2011-12 Issue copy of order, demand notice and penalty notices to the assessee. Tax payable is computed

SHUBH KARAN BAID. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WD-4(3), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

capital gain from the sale of penny stock of CCL International Ltd. The assessee offered sum as income from other source and accordingly assessment was completed in the assessment proceedings. The AO noted that considering these facts Rs. 52,51,973/- was constituted as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act by ignoring the fact that the assessee

RAM AWATAR DHOOT,KOLKATA vs. WARD 22(4) KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.91/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ram Awatar Dhoot…...…………….....……………………....………....Appellant 29B, Rabindra Sarani Floor, Room No.10E, Kolkata-700073. [Pan: Adepd7419F] Vs. Ito, Ward-22(4), Kolkata…...................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ram Awatar Dhoot, Self, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 27, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 29, 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 26.12.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Levy/Confirmation Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Claimed Long- Term Capital Gains On Account Of Sale Of Shares At Rs.14,94,407/-. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Produced Relevant Documents To Substantiate His Claim, However, The Assessing Officer Held That As Per The Report Received From The Investigation Wing, There

capital gains. Though the additions have been made/confirmed on the basis of preponderance of probabilities in this case, however, to establish the allegation of concealment of income/ furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income to invoke penal provisions of section 271

PRAMOD KUMAR SARAF,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-22(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.683/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Pramod Kumar Saraf...…………….....……………………....………....Appellant 24, R. N Mukherjee Road, Mission Row, Kol-1. [Pan: Apkps6814F] Vs. Ito, Ward-22(2), Kolkata…...................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 26, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 28, 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 26.03.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Levy/Confirmation Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Claimed Long- Term Capital Gains On Account Of Sale Of Shares At Rs.7,10,447/-. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Produced Relevant Documents To Substantiate His Claim, However, The Assessing Officer Held That As Per The Report Received From The Investigation Wing, There Was Large Scale Price Rigging Of Certain Scrips, Whereby, The Bogus Long-Term

capital gains. Though the additions have been made/confirmed on the basis of preponderance of probabilities in this case, however, to establish the allegation of concealment of income/ furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income to invoke penal provisions of section 271

SARIKA DUGAR,KOLKATA vs. ITO, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

capital gain in the reopening proceedings. I.T.A. No. 363/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sarika Dugar 3 6.1. On the other hand, the ld. D/R submitted that the order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not barred by limitation as on account of Covid- 19 Pandemic, the limitation period was extended from time to time by the CBDT. Copies

JITENDRA KUMAR JAIN(HUF),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-43(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the start of the appellate proceedings or in course of appellate proceedings.”

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not correct and liable to be deleted. On this context, the Ld. AR stated that the Ld. AO nowhere demonstrate as to 2 I.T.A. No. 22/Kol/2024 Jitendra Kumar Jain (HUF) how the long term capital gain

VIRENDRA KUMAR SURANA HUF,KOLKATA vs. ITO, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 Virendra Kumar Surana, Huf Income-Tax Officer, Ward- 4A, Pollock Street, Swaika 36(1), Kolkata. Vs. Centre, 3Rd Floor, R. No. 308, Kolkata-700001. (Pan: Aabhv3803K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain which was claimed as exempt income for taxation, amounting to Rs.6,70,136/- to avoid litigation and buy peace with the Tax Department. Accordingly, Ld. AO completed the assessment, considering the voluntary offering made by the assessee which was added to the total income of the assessee as income from other sources. 3.1. While doing

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

Capital Gains. The Exit Providers were not able to provide any logical explanation of the source of funds they have invested in the scrip when they purchased the I.T.A. No.: 724/KOL/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Navansh Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. scrip when the price was at its peak. They also clearly mentioned that the trades were not done by them

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Gain to claim\ndeduction u/s 10(38) of the Act or Short Term Capital Loss or\nbusiness loss. But he failed to detect how your appellant is related\nwith the story. It is also beyond the Assessing Officer's as well as the\nLd. CIT(A)'s capacity because neither your appellant claimed\ndeduction

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

capital gains being computed twice in the computation made in the assessment order. However, the said issue has been addressed by the rectification order dated December 29, 2017 and as such the said issue is not being pressed. 9. The next issue pertaining to assessment year 2013-14 is denial of deduction under section

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

capital gains being computed twice in the computation made in the assessment order. However, the said issue has been addressed by the rectification order dated December 29, 2017 and as such the said issue is not being pressed. 9. The next issue pertaining to assessment year 2013-14 is denial of deduction under section

SHRI SANTANU SANYAL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 2(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Pradip Kumar Choubey

capital gains of Rs. 2,30,238/- from of sale of equity share and equity-oriented fund, while giving effect to the Impugned Order. Page 3 of 12 I.T.A. No.: 41/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Santanu Sanyal. 9. That the Ld. AO erred on facts and in law in not granting exemption under Section 10(34) on dividend income

CHETAN KUMAR TEKRIWAL (HUF),HOWRAH vs. I.T.O., WARD - 46(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

capital gain from the sale of penny stock of CCL International Ltd. The assessee offered sum as income from other source and accordingly assessment was completed in the assessment proceedings. The AO noted that considering these facts Rs. 52,51,973/- was constituted as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act by ignoring the fact that the assessee

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

PRADYUMNA DALMIA BENEFICIARY TRUST,KOLKATA vs. ADIT(CPC)/I.T.O., WARD - 33(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

271 ITR 159) … vi. The Hon'ble Tribunal in Sriram Trust, Hyderabad vs Income Tax Officer in Para 6 & 7 held as under – … vii. The Hon'ble Tribunal in Ujjwal Business Trust, Mumbai Vs Income Tax CPC, Bangaluru (ITA no. 602/MUM/2024) in Para 7 held as under- … viii. The Hon'ble Tribunal in Jitendra Gala Navneet Trust Vs Deputy Director