D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. SHRI SAROJ KUMAR PODDAR, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble]

capital gains’ specifically with reference to section 55(2)(a) of the Act.” It is on this basis also that the Hon’b It is on this basis also that the Hon’ble ITAT further in its order has held dealt with le ITAT further in its order has held dealt with issue regarding taxability of the receipt under Section

EMAMI INDRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

55,636 shares of Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. in its two demat account as follows: Demat Account Nos. Number of Shares purchased A/c No 1201060001387516 (hereinafter Account 1) 2,38,578 Ac No 10026664 (hereinafter Account 2) 3,17,058 Out of 2,38,578 shares in Account 1; 1,13,733 shares were transferred to Account 2

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. JCT LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

55,49,732/-. The AO has taxed this sum @30% instead of 20% as computed by the appellant company. Apart from above, the AO has not disputed any other element of the capital gain computation. Short Term Capital Gain Sale Consideration 1,200,000,000 Less: Expenditure in connection with transfer 545,100 Cost of Transfer

JCT LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

55,49,732/-. The AO has taxed this sum @30% instead of 20% as computed by the appellant company. Apart from above, the AO has not disputed any other element of the capital gain computation. Short Term Capital Gain Sale Consideration 1,200,000,000 Less: Expenditure in connection with transfer 545,100 Cost of Transfer

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

ac- cordance with law and supported by material. If there is no sufficient material, the addition must be deleted. The Tribunal cannot order further enquiry with a view to sustain the addition. This will amount to taking sides with the parties which is not the function of a judicial authority like the Tribunal." Thus, in view of the above judicial

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

ac- cordance with law and supported by material. If there is no sufficient material, the addition must be deleted. The Tribunal cannot order further enquiry with a view to sustain the addition. This will amount to taking sides with the parties which is not the function of a judicial authority like the Tribunal." Thus, in view of the above judicial

SOUMITRA CHOUDHURY ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 22 , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Years :2012-13 Soumitra Choudhury V/S. Acit, Circle-12 28C, Satish Mukherjee 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Road, Kolkata-700026 Kidwai Road, [Pan No.Acnpc 4627 Q] Kolkarta-16 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Miraj D Shah, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sankar Halder, Jcit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 13-03-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing Assessment Year :2015-16 Purushottam Das Agarwal V/S. Income Tax Officer, C/O Balaji Enterprises, Ward-35(1), Aayakar 83/85 N.S. Road, Ground Bhawan Porva, 110, Floor, Kolkata Shantipally, Kokata- [Pan No.Actpa 9138 Q] 107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Subash Agarwal Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sankar Halder, Jcit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 14-03-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 15-03-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- These Two Assessees Have Filed Their Instant Appeal(S) For Assessment Year(S) 2012-13 & 2015-16 Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax

55 per share - he came to opinion that value of said shares could not be as high as Rs.55 per share - He recorded statement of broker who admitted to have purchased shares in question but failed to produce books of account and other relevant documents - He also found that alleged sale of shares had not taken place through any stock

PURUSHOTTAM DAS AGARWAL ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 35(1) , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Years :2012-13 Soumitra Choudhury V/S. Acit, Circle-12 28C, Satish Mukherjee 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Road, Kolkata-700026 Kidwai Road, [Pan No.Acnpc 4627 Q] Kolkarta-16 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Miraj D Shah, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sankar Halder, Jcit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 13-03-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing Assessment Year :2015-16 Purushottam Das Agarwal V/S. Income Tax Officer, C/O Balaji Enterprises, Ward-35(1), Aayakar 83/85 N.S. Road, Ground Bhawan Porva, 110, Floor, Kolkata Shantipally, Kokata- [Pan No.Actpa 9138 Q] 107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Subash Agarwal Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sankar Halder, Jcit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 14-03-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 15-03-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- These Two Assessees Have Filed Their Instant Appeal(S) For Assessment Year(S) 2012-13 & 2015-16 Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax

55 per share - he came to opinion that value of said shares could not be as high as Rs.55 per share - He recorded statement of broker who admitted to have purchased shares in question but failed to produce books of account and other relevant documents - He also found that alleged sale of shares had not taken place through any stock

DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S JET AGE SECURITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1359/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Jet Age Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcj 0993 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

55,262/- ; STCG offered u/s 111A of the Act was Rs 1,93,33,138/- and Other STCG was Rs 8,93,714/-. Assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act wherein STCG claimed u/s 111A of the Act was sought to be taxed as business income by the ld AO. For Asst Year 2011-12 , the Own Capital

THE UNITED PROVINCES SUGAR COMPANY LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 12(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

55,913/-. He determined income from both short term capital gains and from long term capital gains at Rs.33,83,89,890/- and assessed the total income of the assessee under the normal provisions of the Act at Rs.14,23,83,070/-. The Assessing Officer did not compute the book profits u/s 115JB of the Act. He did not consider

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

gain was a bogus claim. The Hon’ble Court has considered the material collected by the Investigating Wing of the Department on the premises of certain companies ,who were manipulating the stocks or indulging any accommodation entry business. If we apply the ratio of this judgment upon these cases, then it would reveal that the benefit of claim under section

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

gain was a bogus claim. The Hon’ble Court has considered the material collected by the Investigating Wing of the Department on the premises of certain companies ,who were manipulating the stocks or indulging any accommodation entry business. If we apply the ratio of this judgment upon these cases, then it would reveal that the benefit of claim under section

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

gain was a bogus claim. The Hon’ble Court has considered the material collected by the Investigating Wing of the Department on the premises of certain companies ,who were manipulating the stocks or indulging any accommodation entry business. If we apply the ratio of this judgment upon these cases, then it would reveal that the benefit of claim under section

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

gain was a bogus claim. The Hon’ble Court has considered the material collected by the Investigating Wing of the Department on the premises of certain companies ,who were manipulating the stocks or indulging any accommodation entry business. If we apply the ratio of this judgment upon these cases, then it would reveal that the benefit of claim under section

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

gain was a bogus claim. The Hon’ble Court has considered the material collected by the Investigating Wing of the Department on the premises of certain companies ,who were manipulating the stocks or indulging any accommodation entry business. If we apply the ratio of this judgment upon these cases, then it would reveal that the benefit of claim under section

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

gain was a bogus claim. The Hon’ble Court has considered the material collected by the Investigating Wing of the Department on the premises of certain companies ,who were manipulating the stocks or indulging any accommodation entry business. If we apply the ratio of this judgment upon these cases, then it would reveal that the benefit of claim under section

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

gain was a bogus claim. The Hon’ble Court has considered the material collected by the Investigating Wing of the Department on the premises of certain companies ,who were manipulating the stocks or indulging any accommodation entry business. If we apply the ratio of this judgment upon these cases, then it would reveal that the benefit of claim under section

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

gain was a bogus claim. The Hon’ble Court has considered the material collected by the Investigating Wing of the Department on the premises of certain companies ,who were manipulating the stocks or indulging any accommodation entry business. If we apply the ratio of this judgment upon these cases, then it would reveal that the benefit of claim under section