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

PRATIK AGARWAL BENEFICIARY TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, C.C.-3(1), , 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

money in\nconstruction is also not correct.\nVenkata Dilip Kumar vs. CIT, 111 taxman.com 180 (Mad HC) {following the\ndecision of CIT vs. Ramchandra Rao 56 taxman.com 163 (Karnataka HC).\n\"14. In my considered view, the contention of the Revenue to deny the benefit\nof deduction to the petitioner/assessee cannot be justified for the following\nreasons: Section

BEGRAJ AGARWAL & ORS HUF,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 34(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ito, Ward 34(1), Kolkata Begraj Agarwal & Ors. Huf Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, 110, Diamond Heritage, Unit No.609, Strand Road, Kolkata-700001 Shantipally, Kolkata-700107, Vs. West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabhb8295F Assessee By : Shri S.M. Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Amuldeep Kaur, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.01.2025

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. The ld. AO finally added the amount of Long Term Capital Gain of ₹94,38,891/- to the income of the assessee in the assessment framed u/s 147 read with section 144B of the Act dated 30.03.2022. 04. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) also passed a very cryptic order

MINAKSHI DAS,JALPAIGURI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(3),, SILIGURI

CAPITAL GAIN\nSale of Items as per list enclosed\n45,45,100\nLess: (cost of acquisition etc.)\n(-) 1741068\nIndexed Cost of Acquisition\n2804032\nINCOMEFROM OTHER SOURCE\nINCOME FROMINTEREST\nInterest from Saving Bank A/c\nS/B Int.\n63565\nInterest on F.d. with banks\nF.D Int\n15885.\nINCOME FROMOTHERS\nLIC commission\n79,450\n85370\n85,370\nGROSS TOTAL INCOME\nLess:- Deduction under

SAROJ BAID,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 36(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, J & Dr. Manish Borad

unexplained cash credit for alleged bogus long-term capital gain under section 10(38) of the Act is in dispute before us. We notice that the alleged long-term capital gain has been earned by the assessee during the year under appeal from sale of equity shares of NCL Research and Financial Services Limited. This company is in the list

SAROJ BAID,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, J & Dr. Manish Borad

unexplained cash credit for alleged bogus long-term capital gain under section 10(38) of the Act is in dispute before us. We notice that the alleged long-term capital gain has been earned by the assessee during the year under appeal from sale of equity shares of NCL Research and Financial Services Limited. This company is in the list

BANI BROTO BANERJEE ,KOLKATA vs. CIT(A), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 520/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Bani Broto Banerjee,…………………..…………Appellant Sanskriti, Flat – 3A, 148, Rashbehari Avenue, Near Deshapriya Park, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Abppb0424P] -Vs.- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals),……Respondent Aayakar Bhawan Dakshin, 2, Gariahat Road (South), Kolkata-700031 Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Smt. Ranu Bisws, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 18, 2024 O R D E R

Unexplained 2,12,857/- adjustment of interest (refer para 2 above) Long Term Capital Gains 9,91,00,694/- 3 Bani Broto Banerjee 5. Dissatisfied with this working, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) has accepted the contention of the assessee with regard to admissibility of expenditure incurred for furniture

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

MANOJ JAIN (HUF),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 35(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

unexplained cash credit for alleged bogus long-term capital gain under section 10(38) of the Act is in dispute before us. We notice that the alleged long-term capital gain has been earned by the assessee during the year under appeal from sale of equity shares of Sulabh Engineers & Services Limited. This company is in the list

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]

money into tax exempt long-term capital gains and for that purpose, there were certain persons chosen as exit providers who would buy shares when the share prices would be at its peak and those exit providers thereafter would suffer losses on account of fall in the price of the shares. This specific fact on the file shows that

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.

capital gain. Though the issue was regarding unexplained share application money but for reasons best known to the ld. CIT(A), he has referred

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Capital Gain and has\nearned ₹11,87,522/- in the script of M/s BSR Finance & Construction\nLtd. The Id. AR then concluded that he has reason to believe that the\nincome the income has escaped assessment.\n010. In our option, the above reasons are not complete as the details of\ntransactions, such as date of transactions, the person from whom

OMPRAKASH DARUKA,RANIGANJ vs. ITO, WARD 3(1), , ASANSOL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.685/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Omprakash Daruka, Vs Ito, Ward-3(1), Asansol C/O S.N.Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street Kolkata-700001 Pan No. : Acqpd 1122 L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Shankar Naskar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R

money has been received and where the transactions have been transacted and how the assessee is beneficiary of bogus Long Term Capital Gain. We find merit in the contention of the assessee that the reopening has been made on the basis of vague reasons as it the reasons mentioned only that the assessee is beneficiary of Long Term Capital Gain

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

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

money in the garb of bogus LongTerm Gain or Short Term Capital Gain in disguise of transacting In the shares of M/s Sulabh Engineers and Services Ltd. Hence, based on the findings and surrounding circumstances and considering the aspect of human probability in transacting In such a script, the LTCG&STCG claimed by the assessee has been treated

KUSUM GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the different assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

unexplained expenditure on account of commission payment to the tune of Rs. 27,443/- u/s 69C of the Act by revising the assessment and directing the AO to reassess the income. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently submitted before us that the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and passing of a consequent revisionary order

BINA GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the different assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

unexplained expenditure on account of commission payment to the tune of Rs. 27,443/- u/s 69C of the Act by revising the assessment and directing the AO to reassess the income. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently submitted before us that the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and passing of a consequent revisionary order