HILL QUEEN INVESTMENT PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Hill Queen Investment (P) Ltd...……………………....................................……………..…….............Appellant Surobala Apartments Flat No. 202 3Rd Floor Block-B Rekhjuani, Bhatinda Rajarhat Kolkata – 700 135 [Pan : Aaacj 2324 P] Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Kolkata..................…………...............................…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Devi Sharan Singh, Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 6Th, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 21St, 2021 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 2, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 20/03/2020, For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. There Is A Delay Of 223 (Two Hundred Twenty Three) Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee. After Perusing The Petition For Condonation For Delay, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause In Filing The Appeal In Time. Hence, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal. 3. The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.20,40,470/- On 28/09/2015. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny For The Following Reasons:- “(I) Mismatch In Sales Turnover Reported In Audit Report & Itr (Ii) Mismatch In Amount Paid To Related Persons U/S 40A(2)(B) Reported In Audit Report & Itr (Iii) Suspicious Sale Transaction In Shares (Penny Stock Tab In Its)”

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. The assessee is a company and filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2015-16, disclosing total income of Rs.20,40,470/- on 28/09/2015. The case was selected for limited scrutiny for the following reasons:- “(i) Mismatch in sales turnover reported in Audit Report and ITR (ii) Mismatch in amount

NARAYAN SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

delay of 28 days in filing the\npresent appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for\nhearing.\n4. It was submitted by the Id. AR that as per the AO, the assessee had\nmade investments in allegedly three penny stock

DINESH GANGWAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-50(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 1105/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Dinesh Gangwal,.....................................Appellant Olympus Court, Flat 102, Block-B, 4/2, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata-700020 [Pan: Adxpg0498E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-50(1), Kolkata, Income Tax Office, Manicktala, Civil Centre, Uttarapan Complex Ds-Iv, Kolkata-700067 Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Amitava Sen, Addl. Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 26, 2023 O R D E R

delay is for a reasonable cause and accordingly the same is condoned. 4. The assessee has challenged reopening of assessment by the ld. Assessing Officer under section 147 of the Act, which was upheld by the ld. CIT(Appeals). 5. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed his return of income on 31.03.2014 declaring total income of Rs.1

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]

penny stock matters before ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court irrespective of the monetary limits. He referred to the theory of preponderance of probabilities and submitted that the AO in this case has failed to properly examine the claims of the assessee and has granted exemption. He justified the directions of Pr. CIT requiring the AO to add the gross

RAVISH 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)

penny stock matters before ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court irrespective of the monetary limits. He referred to the theory of preponderance of probabilities and submitted that the AO in this case has failed to properly examine the claims of the assessee and has granted exemption. He justified the directions of Pr. CIT requiring the AO to add the gross

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)

penny stock matters before ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court irrespective of the monetary limits. He referred to the theory of preponderance of probabilities and submitted that the AO in this case has failed to properly examine the claims of the assessee and has granted exemption. He justified the directions of Pr. CIT requiring the AO to add the gross

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)

penny stock matters before ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court irrespective of the monetary limits. He referred to the theory of preponderance of probabilities and submitted that the AO in this case has failed to properly examine the claims of the assessee and has granted exemption. He justified the directions of Pr. CIT requiring the AO to add the gross

REETA 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)

penny stock matters before ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court irrespective of the monetary limits. He referred to the theory of preponderance of probabilities and submitted that the AO in this case has failed to properly examine the claims of the assessee and has granted exemption. He justified the directions of Pr. CIT requiring the AO to add the gross

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)

penny stock matters before ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court irrespective of the monetary limits. He referred to the theory of preponderance of probabilities and submitted that the AO in this case has failed to properly examine the claims of the assessee and has granted exemption. He justified the directions of Pr. CIT requiring the AO to add the gross

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)

penny stock matters before ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court irrespective of the monetary limits. He referred to the theory of preponderance of probabilities and submitted that the AO in this case has failed to properly examine the claims of the assessee and has granted exemption. He justified the directions of Pr. CIT requiring the AO to add the gross

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)

penny stock matters before ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court irrespective of the monetary limits. He referred to the theory of preponderance of probabilities and submitted that the AO in this case has failed to properly examine the claims of the assessee and has granted exemption. He justified the directions of Pr. CIT requiring the AO to add the gross

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHANTI DEVI SOMANI, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of revenue as well as cross objections of both the assessees are dismissed

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

condon the delay and the cross objections of both the assessee are admitted to be heard along with appeals of the revenue. 3. Since the issues involved in both the appeals are identical except difference in figures, therefore, both the appeals of the revenue are taken together and disposed off by this consolidated order. We shall consider the facts

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. CHANDU SOMANI, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of revenue as well as cross objections of both the assessees are dismissed

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

condon the delay and the cross objections of both the assessee are admitted to be heard along with appeals of the revenue. 3. Since the issues involved in both the appeals are identical except difference in figures, therefore, both the appeals of the revenue are taken together and disposed off by this consolidated order. We shall consider the facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA vs. DHARMENDRA SINGH, KOLKATA

Appeal of the revenue is allowed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Itat Received From The Office Of The Pr. Cit, Central-2, Kolkata 26.06.2024 Filed 2Nd Appeal U/S 253 Before The Hon’Ble Itat, Kolkata

condone the delay and admit this appeal for adjudication. 2. This appeal arises from order dated 29.02.2024, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata-27 [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)]. 2.1 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed its return

SUMAN SARAF,KOLKATA vs. ITO , WARD-43(6), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 3. The assessee has raised the following ground of appeal:- “That under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. PCIT, Kolkata-15 erred in treating the LTCG of Rs.51,99,603/- claimed on the sale of shares of CCL International Limited to be bogus

VIKAS NAHATA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 44(2),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1589/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Vikas Nahata,……..……………….………...……Appellant 1St Floor, Prn House, Burrabazar, 177, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Kolkata-700007 [Pan:Abppn4488D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-44(2), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001 Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Smt. Sima Das Biswas, Sr. D.R., Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: October 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 21, 2025 O R D E R

delay is condoned for the appeal. 4. The facts in brief are that in this case, information was received from the DDIT(Inv.), Unit-3(2), Kolkata dated 26.02.2018 that a very large number of persons had taken entries of huge bogus long-term capital gain/short-term capital loss in a organized manner through share transactions of penny stock

DCIT CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA vs. ZEN STOCK AND SHARE BROKING PVT LTD, KOLKATA

delay is\nhereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.\n1.2 This appeal arises from the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 (hereafter “the Act”), dated 30.08.2023, passed by the Ld.\nCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal\nCentre, Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)"].\n1.3 In this case, the Ld. AO passed an order

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AVINASH COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the fact and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erred in passing the order by deleting the amount Rs 1,91,00,000/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 without verifying

LITTLESKY DEALTRADE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-9(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Hon'Ble Tribunal Against The Appellate Order Dated 27.07.2021 Received On Same Day Through Email, Numbered As Ita No. 563/Kol/22 & Fixed For Hearing Before The Ld. 'Smc' Bench With A Delay Of Around 369 Days.

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. This appeal arises from order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) dated 27.07.2021, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”]. In this case, the Ld. AO made several additions