ITO, WARD - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TRIBUTE TRADING AND FINANCE LTD.,, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

capital gains of ₹3,26,63,032/- to be income from undisclosed source as follows:- “Grounds of Appeal: Aggrieved by the order passed by the A.O., ACIT,Cir-51(l) Kolkata dated 29.12.2016 the appellant has preferred this appeal with the following grounds of appeal. 2.1 (a) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

SMT. SUSHILA DEVI KAJARIA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 36, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

capital gain. The gain has accordingly to be assessed as undisclosed credit u/s 68 In view of the above discussion, I find no infirmity in the orders of the Ld. AO, and I confirm the same, holding the claim of STCL of Rs.2,93,720/- to be bogus. The ground ore stands dismissed. 14. Ground No 5 emanates from

NAVIN KUMAR KAJARIA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 35, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

capital gain. The gain has accordingly to be assessed as undisclosed credit u/s 68 In view of the above discussion, I find no infirmity in the orders of the Ld. AO, and I confirm the same, holding the claim of STCL of Rs.2,93,720/- to be bogus. The ground ore stands dismissed. 14. Ground No 5 emanates from

SHRI UDIT AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. DCIT(IT)-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed accordingly

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2014-15 Shri Udit Agarwal V/S. Dcit (It)-2(1), 110, 3, Madan Mohan Burman Shanti Pally, Kolkata- Street, Kolkataa-007 107 [Pan No.Ahupa 0424 B] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 03-12-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 26-12-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22,Kolkata’S Order Dated 10.05.2017 Passed In Case No.71/Cit(A)/22/Kol/14-15/16-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Learned Representatives. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Ground Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Treating Its Long Term Capital Gains (Ltcg) Of ₹64,99,391/- To Be Unexplained Cash Credits U/S 68 Of The Act. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reads As Under:- ”06. Decision: 1. I Have Carefully Considered The Action Of The Ld. Ao In Treating The Amount Of Rs.67,24,391/- Being Claimed By The Appellant To Be Proceeds Of Shares Sold To Be Ltcg & Claimed As Exempt. The Findings Of The Ld. Ao Are Based On The Information Being Supplied By The Investigation Wing Of The Department At Kolkata. I Have Also Carefully Examined The Submissions Of The Appellant, Wherein

Capital Gains. However, the AO, based on the information received by him from Calcutta Stock Exchange found that the transactions were not recorded thereat. He therefore held that the transactions were bogus. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, affirmed the decision of the Tribunal wherein it was found that the chain of transactions entered into by the assessee have been

SHRI ABHAY KUMAR JAIN ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 34(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. J.Sudhakar Reddy & Sh. S.S.Viswanethra Ravi[Assessment Year: 2014-15] Vs Ito, Shri Abhay Kumar Jain, 113, Biplabi Rash Behari Basu Ward-34(2), 110, Road, Kolkata-700001. Shantipally, Near Ruby Pan-Acqpj4044F. Hospital, Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. S.M.Surana, Advocate Respondent By Sh. S.Dasgupta, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2018 Order

69C of the Act. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal without success. Further, aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us. 3. We have heard the rival contentions. The assessee assailed the findings of the AO as well as Ld.CIT(A) and submitted that, the entire addition was made based on surmises and conjectures and relying upon

SATISH KUMAR LAKHMANI,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"ी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. टी. वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Capital Gains (hereinafter ‘LTCG’) (with STT) and had claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act. These assessees had entered into share transactions through M/s. JRK Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd. The AO passed an order u/s 143(3) of the Act in all these cases and accepted the claim of the assessees for exemption

ROHIT JALAN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 2205/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Capital Gains claim of the assessee in respect of sale of scrip of M/s. Tuni Textile Mills Ltd. as exempt u/s. 10(38) of the Act which was held by AO to be bogus and that action of AO was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) on appeal of the assessee. Therefore this appeal of assessee before this Tribunal

RAVI CHOUDHARY(LEGAL REP OF LT. SUSHILA CHOUDHARI),KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-36(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm ]

Capital Gain (LTCG) on which no tax has been paid by claiming the same as exempt u/s. 10(38) of the I.T. Act 1961 through accommodation entry in lieu of cash. 5. In view of the above facts and after analyzing the information available on record, I have the reason to believe that the assessee had suppressed its income

ADITYA VIKRAM SUREKA, HUF,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 34(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 1650/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Aditya Vikram Sureka Huf -Vs- Ito, Ward-34(2) , Kolkata [Pan: Aamha 4069 D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Capital Gains. However, the AO, based on the information received by him from Calcutta Stock Exchange found that the transactions were not recorded thereat. He therefore held that the transactions were bogus. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, affirmed the decision of the Tribunal wherein it was found that the chain of transactions entered into by the assessee have been

BISHWA NATH KHARAKIA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-34(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz)] [Through Virtual Court] I.T.A. No. 1487/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bishwa Nath Kharakia......................................……………………………………………………Appellant 39, Strand Road, Room – 68, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Afopk 1288 D] Vs Ito, Ward – 34(1), Kolkata...................……………………………………………….............Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit, Sr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 19, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 23, 2021 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata Dated 26.04.2019 & The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Therein Read As Under: “I. That The Ld. Cit (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Learned Income Tax Officer In Making An Addition Of Rs. 8,30,797/-, As Alleged Cash Credit, In Place Of Treating The Same As Long Term Capital Gain Earned By The Appellant On Sale Of Shares Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. The Learned Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Said Addition On The Alleged Ground That The Transactions Looked To Him As Unnatural & Suspicious In Nature. He Should Have Appreciated That The Shares Were In The Demat Account Of The Appellant For More Than 4 (Four) Years & There Was No Specific Adverse Information Against The Appellant From Dit (Inv.) Ii. That The Learned Cit (Appeals) Erred In Confirming An Addition Of Rs. 4154/- U/S 69C Of The I.T. Act As Alleged

69C on account of unexplained expenditure. The Ld. CIT(A) however did not find merit in the submissions made on behalf of the assessee in support of his case on both these issues and dismissing the appeal of the assessee, he confirmed both the additions made by the AO to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order

RATAN LAL AGARWALA, KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ratan Lal Agarwal……..…….....................…………….………………………………………..……….……..Appellant 1, R.N. Mukherjee Road Lal Bazar Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Acrpa 9773 H] Income Tax Officer, Ward-36(1), Kolkata.……………………………….…..………..……………...Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sital Chandra Das, Addl. Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 28Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 12Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 10 Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 15/02/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Sole Issue That Arises For My Consideration Is, As To Whether, The Addition In Question Made U/S 68 Of The Act, In Respect Of Sale Profits Of Shares Of Essar India Ltd., Is Valid In Law. The Assessee Had Disclosed Long Term Capital Gain On The Purchase & Sale Of Shares Of Essar India Ltd. The Assessing Officer As Well As The Ld. Cit(A) Were Of The View That This Is A Pre-Arranged Bogus Long Terms Capital Gain. They Rejected The Contentions Of The Assessee & The Entire Receipt Was Treated U/S 68 Of The Act. 5% Fo The Same Was Also Added U/S 69 Of The Act, As Commission Paid. The Assessee In Support Of His Contentions Has Filed The Following Documents, During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings :- A) Copies Of Bank Statements B) Ledger Copies C) Demat Statements D) Contract Notes

section 10(38) of the Act.” 10 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ratan Lal Agarwal g) The BENCH “H” OF MUMBAI ITAT in the case of ARVIND KUMAR JAIN HUF [ITA No.4682/Mum/2014] order dated 18.09.2017 held as under vide Page 6 Para 8: “……We found that as far as initiation of investigation of broker is concerned, the assessee

M/S. MAHENDRA KUMAR JHAWAR AND SONS, HUF,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 35(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed accordingly

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2015-16 M/S Mahendra Kumar V/S. Income Tax Officer, Jhawar & Sons Huf, Ward-No.35(4), 110 14/2 3Rd Floor, R.No. 223, Shantipally, Nr. Ruby Bhikam Chand Market, Hospitl, E.M. Bye Old China Bazar St. Pass,Kolkakta-17 Brabouarne Road,Kolkata-001 [Pan No.Aaghm 5078 N] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessment Year :2014-15 Shri Manoj Kumar Dugar V/S. Income Tax Officer, 18B Sukeas Lane, Ward-No.35(4), 110 Kolkata-700001 Shantipally, Nr. Ruby [Pan No.Adppd 7177 D] Hospitl, E.M. Bye Pass,Kolkakta-17 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate आवेदक क" ओर से/By Assessee Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl Cit-Sr-Dr राज"व क" ओर से/By Respondent 19-11-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 30-11-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- These Two Assessees Have Filed Their Instant Respective Appeal(S) For Assessment Years 2015-15 & 2014-15 Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10 Kolkata’S Separate Order(S) Dated 19.07.2018 And

capital gains were accommodation entries. Accordingly, the entire proceeds of sale of shares credited in the books of the assessees were treated by the AD as unexplained cash credits and additions to that extent were made by him to the total income of the assessees u/s 68. He also treated the commission allegedly paid by the assessee for obtaining such

SHRI MANOJ KUMAR DUGAR ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 35(4), , KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed accordingly

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2015-16 M/S Mahendra Kumar V/S. Income Tax Officer, Jhawar & Sons Huf, Ward-No.35(4), 110 14/2 3Rd Floor, R.No. 223, Shantipally, Nr. Ruby Bhikam Chand Market, Hospitl, E.M. Bye Old China Bazar St. Pass,Kolkakta-17 Brabouarne Road,Kolkata-001 [Pan No.Aaghm 5078 N] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessment Year :2014-15 Shri Manoj Kumar Dugar V/S. Income Tax Officer, 18B Sukeas Lane, Ward-No.35(4), 110 Kolkata-700001 Shantipally, Nr. Ruby [Pan No.Adppd 7177 D] Hospitl, E.M. Bye Pass,Kolkakta-17 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate आवेदक क" ओर से/By Assessee Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl Cit-Sr-Dr राज"व क" ओर से/By Respondent 19-11-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 30-11-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- These Two Assessees Have Filed Their Instant Respective Appeal(S) For Assessment Years 2015-15 & 2014-15 Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10 Kolkata’S Separate Order(S) Dated 19.07.2018 And

capital gains were accommodation entries. Accordingly, the entire proceeds of sale of shares credited in the books of the assessees were treated by the AD as unexplained cash credits and additions to that extent were made by him to the total income of the assessees u/s 68. He also treated the commission allegedly paid by the assessee for obtaining such

JAIKISHAN LAKHMANI ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10 , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Capital Gains (hereinafter ‘LTCG’) (with STT) and had claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act. These assessees had entered into share transactions through M/s. JRK Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd. The AO passed an order u/s 143(3) of the Act in all these cases and accepted the claim of the assessees for exemption u/s 10(38) of 3 I.T.A

GOPICHAND LAKHMANI ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Capital Gains (hereinafter ‘LTCG’) (with STT) and had claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act. These assessees had entered into share transactions through M/s. JRK Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd. The AO passed an order u/s 143(3) of the Act in all these cases and accepted the claim of the assessees for exemption u/s 10(38) of 3 I.T.A

RACHIT LAKHMANI ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Capital Gains (hereinafter ‘LTCG’) (with STT) and had claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act. These assessees had entered into share transactions through M/s. JRK Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd. The AO passed an order u/s 143(3) of the Act in all these cases and accepted the claim of the assessees for exemption u/s 10(38) of 3 I.T.A

RITIN LAKHMANI,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10 , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Capital Gains (hereinafter ‘LTCG’) (with STT) and had claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act. These assessees had entered into share transactions through M/s. JRK Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd. The AO passed an order u/s 143(3) of the Act in all these cases and accepted the claim of the assessees for exemption u/s 10(38) of 3 I.T.A

PRAVESH KUMAR LAKHMANI ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10 , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Capital Gains (hereinafter ‘LTCG’) (with STT) and had claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act. These assessees had entered into share transactions through M/s. JRK Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd. The AO passed an order u/s 143(3) of the Act in all these cases and accepted the claim of the assessees for exemption u/s 10(38) of 3 I.T.A