ANJU DARUKA,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD - 3(1),, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain entries. The assessee challenged the reopening on the grounds that the reasons recorded were vague and scanty, and that the approval for reopening was mechanically granted without proper application of mind.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid on two grounds: first, the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer were vague and scanty, lacking

JALUIDANGA PASCHIM NASARATPUR SAMABY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LIMITED,BARDHAMAN, WEST BENGAL vs. INCOME TAX OPPFICER, WARD-1(3), BURDWAN

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

gains of business or profession. The double addition were made by Learned Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) Burdwan which is completely Bad in Law. The disallowable provisions, which has already been added with the net profit has again added by learned Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) Burdwan and shown as Issue No-01 Sl.No. Particulars Amount

THE BANK OF TOKYO-MITSUBISHI LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADIT, INT. TAX., KOLKATA

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

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

gains of business or profession. The double addition were made by Learned Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) Burdwan which is completely Bad in Law. The disallowable provisions, which has already been added with the net profit has again added by learned Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) Burdwan and shown as Issue No-01 Sl.No. Particulars Amount

SUKLA BANERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 22(2),, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

Capital Gain and total income based on the report of the DVO based on a reference made u/s.142A of the Act, is unsustainable because, power to make a reference u/s.142A of the Act envisages estimation of the value of any investment referred to in Section 69, 69A

BRAJESH NARNOLIA,JHARKHAND vs. ITO,WD-1(1), ASANSOL. , ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 799/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Brajesh Narnolia,…………………………..........Appellant 419, City Center, Luby Circular Road, Dhanbad-826001, Jhankhand [Pan: Aczpn0347G] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-1(1), Asansol, Aayakar Bhawan, Room No. 3, Ground Floor, 116, Vivekananda Sarani, Kanyapur, Asansol-713341, West Bengal Appearances By: Shri S.S. Gupta, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 15, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 17, 2024 O R D E R

Capital Gain derived by the assessee in the purchase and sale of shares of the said company i.e. Sulabh Engineers and Services Limited have been accepted as genuine by Hon'ble Tribunal Benches i.e., Hon'ble Kolkata ITAT, Hon'ble Chennai ITAT and Hon'ble Lucknow ITAT. Vasudha Jain vs ITO - Kolkata ITAT 1. 5mt. Suman Kothari vs ITO - Kolkata

ASHOK VIKRAM PODDAR,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE -34, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

capital gain and other sources. We note that the assessee has withdrawn Rs. 20.00 Lacs from its saving bank account with Allahabad Bank, Raipur and again redeposited Rs. 19.75 Lacs on various dates. The gap between the withdrawals of the money and redeposits in the same bank account range between nine days to three months. The details of the cash

ACIT, CIRCLLE-34, KOLKATA vs. SUBHAS KUMAR KEDIA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1677/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Acit, Circle-34, Kolkata Vs Subhas Kumar Kedia, 41, N.S.Road, Kolkata Pan No. :Afnpk 9669 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Ms. Shreya Loyalka, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 05.06.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- I) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Erred In Quashing The Order U/S.148A(D) & All Subsequent Proceedings. Ii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Failed To Acknowledge The Fact That The Assesse Had Not Expressed Any Grievance Against The Validity Of Order U/S 148A(D) By Moving Any Writ Petition Which Should Have Been Done In Case Of Any Grievance After Getting The Sald Order U/S.148A(D). Iii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Erred In Quashing The Order When The Ld. Cit(A) Has No Jurisdiction To Deal With The Question Whether The 148A(D) Order Was Passed Validly Or Properly As An Order U/S.148A(D) Is Not An Appealable Order Before Ld. Cit(A) As Per Section 246A.

Capital Market Pvt. Ltd. the department had information about transactions from sr. no. 1 to 9 of his table only but had no information about five transactions mentioned in sr. no. 10 to 14 of the chart submitted by him. The appellant has pleaded that Rs. 13,68,850/- had already been offered to tax by him the same amount

SUBODH ADHIKARY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 51(1), KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

Section 292 BB of the Act cannot save the infirmity arising from infraction of CBDT Instructions dealing with the subject of scrutiny assessments where assessment has been framed in direct conflict with the guidelines issued by the CBDT. 6.7 Therefore, on an overall view of the factual matrix as well assettled judicial position, we are of the considered opinion that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUR MANGAL HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

gain earned on said transaction could not be treated as bogus. The transactions of purchase/sale of shares were done in online platform of stock exchange through the registered share brokers through whom assessee paid/received the purchase/sale consideration. The broker also receives payments for all his transactions from Stock Exchange. The seller and the buyer cannot know the names of each

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

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

69A. This aspect has been deliberated upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in numerous decisions. Relevant portion from following case laws are extracted below: i. Sreelekha Banerjee v CIT (1963) 49 1TR 112 (SC) ii. Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v CIT[1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) (iii) Roshan Di Hatti v CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) iii. Sumati

ADITI MITRA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 37(3), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 25/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Aditi Mitra,…………………………………...……Appellant Flat No. 401, Block No. 12, Ujaas, The Condoville, 69, S.K. Deb Road, Kolkata-700048, West Bengal [Pan:Aczpb6415H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………....Respondent Ward-37(3), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001

capital gain. The assessee was asked for substantiating her contention with evidence at the time of appellate proceedings. However, no response or evidence of any type has been filed by the assessee and it is difficult to differ with the order of the ld. Assessing Officer since the assessee has chosen not to reply and it is a case

KRISHNA CHANDRA DAS,TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS SOUTH vs. I.T.O., WARD - 25(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2019-20 Krishna Chandra Das..……………..………………….……….……….……Appellant Ramkrishnanagar Laskarpur, Alipore, 24 Parganas (S), W.B - 743515. [Pan: Ajapd6700B] Vs. Ito, Ward-25(1), Kolkata………….…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri B. B. Payra, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Dipu Koley, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 27, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 02, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.06.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2019–20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed Original Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2019-20. In The Absence Of Voluntary Compliance, The Assessing Officer Initiated Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act By Making Following Additions:

Capital Gain u/s 45 amounting to Rs. 2,25,001/-. ii. Income from other sources u/s 56 amounting to Rs. 84,644/-. iii. Salary Received u/s 15 amounting to Rs. 34,64,292/-. iv. Unexplained Investment U/s 69B amounting to Rs.70,79,999/-. Krishna Chandra Das v. Unexplained Money U/s 69A amounting to Rs. 19,64,920/- 2.1 During