M/S. GATEWAY FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC - 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

unexplained cash credit towards bogus long term capital gain and undisclosed brokerage expenses. 8. Aggrieved, all the four assessees preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A) against the action of ld. AO but failed to succeed as ld. CIT(A)s have given almost identical finding in the instant appeals confirming the action of ld. AOs holding that bogus loss

PINKY AGARWAL ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

unexplained cash credit towards bogus long term capital gain and undisclosed brokerage expenses. 8. Aggrieved, all the four assessees preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A) against the action of ld. AO but failed to succeed as ld. CIT(A)s have given almost identical finding in the instant appeals confirming the action of ld. AOs holding that bogus loss

ZAFAR IQBAL,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

unexplained investments.\nIn view of the facts discussed above, the contention of the appellant is\nrejected and the addition made by the AO of Rs.1,10,10,000/- as\nunexplained investments is confirmed. Accordingly, Ground No. 5 is\ndismissed.\"\n8.2 The assessee regarding this issue has submitted as under:\n“GROUND NO. 8 - B/f credits from last year for Rs.99

ORIENTAL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

gains should be made to acquire another capital asset. 4. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Exemption), Kolkata has erred in coming to conclusion that utilization of corpus fund of Rs.8,71,03,846/- towards charitable activities is in contravention of section 11(1)(d) of the Act although the corpus fund was utilized

VISH REALTY SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-5(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 250/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vish Realty Solutions Private Limited Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3), 55, Ezra Street Vs Kolkata 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcv9938N] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. Jhajharia, A/R Revenue By : Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/01/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -10 (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(E)”) Dt. 02/12/2019, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Io, Kolkata Erred In Passing An Order Dated 2Nd Of December, 2019 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant Without Allowing Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 10, Kolkata Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Share Application Money Ofrs. 5,86,00,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On Irrelevant Considerations & Arbitrary Grounds.

unexplained share application money but for reasons best known to the ld. CIT(A), he has referred the transactions as long term capital gain. The relevant part of the impugned order is extracted as under:- “12. I am in agreement with the Ld. AO that the transactions relating to the claim of LTCG as made by the Ld. AO come

M/S. B.L. TAK AND SONS (HUF),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 34(1) , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Manish Borad&Shri Anikesh Banerjee]

unexplained towards commission given by the appellant for bogus STCL of amounting of Rs. 10,827/- u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on estimation and assumption basis. 6. That the appellant craves to leave, add or amend any of the grounds during the course of appellant proceedings. 3. The Registry has informed us that the appeal was filed

ACME CHEM LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. NFAC, DELHI/ D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

unexplained share capital at Rs. 1,62,80,000/- (ground nos. 7 to 9) 5. As regards the first issue for disallowance u/s 14A of the Act at Rs. 33,86,993/- facts in brief are that the assessee earned exempt income in the form of (i) dividend at Rs. 43,40,324/-, (ii) long term capital gain on venture

ACME CHEM LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

unexplained share capital at Rs. 1,62,80,000/- (ground nos. 7 to 9) 5. As regards the first issue for disallowance u/s 14A of the Act at Rs. 33,86,993/- facts in brief are that the assessee earned exempt income in the form of (i) dividend at Rs. 43,40,324/-, (ii) long term capital gain on venture

ACME CHEM LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

unexplained share capital at Rs. 1,62,80,000/- (ground nos. 7 to 9) 5. As regards the first issue for disallowance u/s 14A of the Act at Rs. 33,86,993/- facts in brief are that the assessee earned exempt income in the form of (i) dividend at Rs. 43,40,324/-, (ii) long term capital gain on venture

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

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]

unexplained credit u/s 68 of the income-tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 35,40,776/-, where the issue is involving as organized tax evasion including cases of bogus capital gain/loss through penny stocks and cases of accommodation entries as per Clause (h) of Para 3.1 of the CBDT's Circular no. 5/2024 dated 15.03.2024. 7. Whether on the fact

JYOTI JHA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT (IT), CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 225/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jyoti Jha Acit(It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata Kalani & Co. Chartered Accountants Vs 5Th Floor, Milestone Building Gandhinagar Turn Tonk Road Jaipur - 302015 [Pan : Aezpj7440J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal, Fca Revenue By : Shri Sunil Kr. Agarwala, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/08/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/10/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel – 2, New Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Drp”) Dt. 05/12/2022, Passed U/S 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. The Ld. Ao Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Assessing The Income Under The Head Capital Gain At Rs.41,46,0917- As Against Nil Income Declared By The Assessee On The Basis Of Direction Of Drp Ignoring That The Amount Of Capital Gain Has Been Invested In Purchase Of Flat Before The Time Available For Filing The Return U/S 139 & Thus Eligible For Deduction U/S 54 Of The Act Even If The Sale Deed Was Executed Subsequently. He Has Further Erred In Observing That Assessee Has Failed To Produce Documentary Evidence In Support Of Claim Ignoring That The Same Was Filed Before The Drp. 2. The Ld. Ao Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Making Addition Of Rs. 7,41,700/- In Respect Of Cash Deposit In The Bank Account U/S 68 Of The Act As Per The Direction Of Drp. He Has Further Erred In Holding That Assessee Failed To Produce Documentary Evidence In Support Of Averments In The Affidavit.

capital gain has been invested in purchase of flat before the time available for filing the return u/s 139 and thus eligible for deduction u/s 54 of the Act even if the sale deed was executed subsequently. He has further erred in observing that assessee has failed to produce documentary evidence in support of claim ignoring that the same

S.R.P. INFOCOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Capital Gains' and thus there occurred double taxation of the added sum of Rs.1,90,62,662. 3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC was wrong in upholding the addition of Rs.1,63,50,000 made by the Assessing Officer as alleged unexplained Investments

RANI GOENKA ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 44(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

investment/ deposits remained unexplained. We note that the assessee has income from other source and also by way of short term and long term capital gain

MANISH PARASRAMPURIA,KOLKATA vs. A.O., NFAC / D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-43, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. 5. For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that the claim of Short Term Capital Gain of Rs.39,41,595/- is genuine and bonafide transaction, as such, the same is liable to be taxed at Special Rate u/s. 111A of the Act.” 3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel

ROHTANG COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

unexplained expenditure u/s 69 of the Act which is patently wrong. Similar is 3 Rohtang Commercial Pvt. Ltd.., AY 2017-18 the status with regard to the other addition i.e loans and advances given by the assessee were added u/s 69 of the Act. 6. In the appellate proceeding also, the order was framed ex parte

ARTI SURANA,HOWRAH vs. I.T.O., WARD - 47(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.1405/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Arti Surana………………………………..……………………….....Appellant Flat 5Cd, Block Iv, 5Th Floor, Vivek Vihar, Phase V, 493/C/A, G. T Road (South), Howrah-711101. [Pan: Akcpp7261L] Vs. Ito, Ward-47(1), Kolkata……….……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rajkumar Agarwal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashutosh Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 27, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.04.2024 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. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Her Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,23,590/-. The Assessing Officer Found The Assessee Has Showed Income Under The Heads Of Short-Term Capital Gain & Other Sources. The Assessee Claimed Exemption Under The Head Of Short-Term Capital Gain From Transaction On Which Securities Transaction Tax Is Paid. However, During The Assessment Proceedings, The Department Received Information Which Indicated That The Assessee Had Traded In Shares Of Amm Ltd. & Eml Scrip Code (538653) To The

capital gain was Rs.11,01,350/-. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer added the difference of Rs.9,73,576/- to the total income of the assessee. Additionally, the Assessing Officer treated the investment of Rs.35,90,829/- (used in equity shares) as unexplained

SHRI FATEH CHAND CHINDALIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 40(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.185/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Fateh Chand Chindalia........................................………...…..…Appellant 4A, Sayed Sally Street, Kolkata-700073. [Pan: Adfpc9919G] Vs. Ito, Ward-40(1), Kolkata......................................................…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 24, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 16, 2023 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 19.03.2021 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -1, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Pcit’] Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 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. For That The Ld. Pcit Erred In Invoking The Provisions Of Section 263 When The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3)/147 On 26.12.2018 Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue.

unexplained investment. During the reassessment proceedings, the assessee explained the source of the aforesaid investment in the shares and the Assessing Officer accepted the explanation that the source of the investment in the said shares was from the bank account of the assessee. Therefore, the Assessing Officer completed the reassessment u/s 147 read with section