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)

1.T. Act, 1961 of Rs.2,375,350/- Computation of Total Income is made as below: Income from Other Sources (as per return) Rs. 27,988/- Add: Income from Other Sources Rs. 79,500/- (as discussed above) Rs. 107,488/- Income from Capital Gain (as per return) Rs.2,275,000/- Gross Total Income Rs.2,382,488/- Less: Deduction under Chapter

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

SWETA CHIRIMAR,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 29(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm &Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am]

Section 275(1)(c) of the Act expired before the framing of penalty order on 17/01/2022, we, however considering the fact that from March, 2021 onwards the country passed through Covid-19 Pandemic and various restrictions were made and period of limitation has been extended by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of suo moto Writ Petition

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

DICO TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-1(4), KOLKATA

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

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

Section 14A of the Act by Finance Act, 2022, will be applicable prospectively and also held that disallowance u/s 14A of the Act should not exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee during the year, delete the disallowance and allow Ground No. 5. 4. Another issues raised in Ground Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 is regarding

MINTU DAS,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 28, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.08/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mintu Das………………………...………........………………....Appellant C/O S. N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Kolkata –1. [Pan: Adppd3034M] Vs. Acit, Circle-28, Kolkata…….……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pradip Biswas, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 21, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 06, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.11.2023 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’) Pertaining To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Challenged The Validity Of The Assessment Proceedings Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act & Consequent To That, An Addition Of Rs.69,42,916/- U/S 68 R.W.S. 115Bbe Of The Act & Further Addition Of A Sum Of Rs.4,86,004/- U/S 69 R.W.S. 115Bbe Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 28.09.2015 By Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.16,50,920/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Compulsory

capital gain (LTCG) of Rs.66,82,916/- claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act arose from sale of shares of Kailash Auto Finance. Notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and the assessee submitted supporting documents including brokers note for purchase of shares, sale contract notes of sale of shares and bank statement

HARBANS SINGH BAGGA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-11(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.1231/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Harbans Singh Bagga.…....………………………… ........................……Appellant A-7 Rajasthali, No-3 Jamadar Khan Lane Near Copper House, Kolkata – 700019. [Pan: Afbpb0526J] Vs. Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata................…................…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, 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 13, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 11, 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 Contested The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Of Rs.1,14,41,888/- Treating The Long-Term Capital Gains Claimed By The Assessee As Bogus. The Assessee Has Contested The Validity Of The Aforesaid Additions Not Only On Merits But Also On The Ground That The Concerned Assessing Officer Did Not Have The Pecuniary Jurisdiction To Pass The Assessment Order In Question By Way Of Additional Legal Ground. Since The Additional Legal Ground Taken By The

capital gains claimed by the assessee as bogus. The assessee has contested the validity of the aforesaid additions not only on merits but also on the ground that the concerned Assessing Officer did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to pass the assessment order in question by way of additional legal ground. Since the additional legal ground taken by the I.T.A

DEEPAK KEDIA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-43, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

capital gain in penny stocks. Accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 28.08.2015 which was duly served upon the assessee and finally the assessment was framed vide order dated 27.12.2016 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act by ACIT, Circle-43, Kolkata. 4. According to Ld. Counsel for the assessee since the income tax return filed

ACIT, CIR.-29,, KOLKATA vs. M/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA EMPLOYEES CO-OP. CR. SOCIETY LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma] I.T.A. No. 268/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Acit, Circle-29, Kolkata Vs. M/S. Steel Authority Of India Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Limited Pan: Aadas 9699 B Appellant Respondent Date Of Hearing 15.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.08.2023 For The Assessee Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Mrs. Puja Somani, Ca For The Revenue Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Dr Order Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 20.12.2022 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’). The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

275/-. Total income assessed Rs. 2,99,60,362/-.” 4. Dissatisfied with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) where the appeal of the assessee was allowed by observing as follows: “7.1. The argument of the appellant in this regard, is that, there is accepted position in this regard by the department in the past

NISHA BAHETI,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-11(2), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Nisha Baheti C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Acit, Cir-11(2), Advocates 2, Garstin Place, Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Chowringhee Square, Vs. Hare Street, Kolkata-700001, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahmpb0320M Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Roma Chaudhary, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.05.2025

Capital Gain on sale of script of Surabhi Chemical & Investments Ltd. Which was claimed u/s 10(38) of the Act as exempt. 04. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the burden of proof was not discharged by the assessee by proving the purchase and sales of the shares

DCIT, CC-3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. TULSYAN AND SONS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

275 (Mad) upheld the notice for reopening which was based on information from enforcement directorate showing possible inflation of purchases made by the assessee. 13. The decisions cited before us do not involve controversy as we are examining in this petition. In the case of Chhugamal Rajpal (supra) as noted, the Supreme Court held the re- opening of assessment invalid

M/S ARROWSPACE TRADECOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-10(2), KOLKATA

In the result, in light of the discussion made above, this appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

gain in any way by the said delay. I.T.A. No.: 344/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/s. Arrowspace Tradecom Pvt. Ltd. 1.1. Considering the contents of this application, the delay is condoned and this appeal is admitted for adjudication. The grounds of appeal are as under: “1. That the Impugned assessment order dated 14-10-2016 passed