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

reassessment proceeding, after discussing the modus operandi of transactions relating to penny stock held that the entire STCG relating to transactions

ASHIKA STOCK BROKING LIMITED, KOLKATA,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

penny stocks on the stock exchange platform. The ld AR referred to the reasons recorded and stated that the AO has recorded in the reasons that the assessee along with two other brokers and promoters of 4 listed companies were banned by SEBI vide order dated 2.12.2010on account of price manipulations and rigging in the stock prices

ASHIKA STOCK BROKING LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

penny stocks on the stock exchange platform. The ld AR referred to the reasons recorded and stated that the AO has recorded in the reasons that the assessee along with two other brokers and promoters of 4 listed companies were banned by SEBI vide order dated 2.12.2010on account of price manipulations and rigging in the stock prices

ASHIKA STOCK BROKING LIMITED, KOLKATA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

penny stocks on the stock exchange platform. The ld AR referred to the reasons recorded and stated that the AO has recorded in the reasons that the assessee along with two other brokers and promoters of 4 listed companies were banned by SEBI vide order dated 2.12.2010on account of price manipulations and rigging in the stock prices

ASHIKA STOCK BROKING LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

penny stocks on the stock exchange platform. The ld AR referred to the reasons recorded and stated that the AO has recorded in the reasons that the assessee along with two other brokers and promoters of 4 listed companies were banned by SEBI vide order dated 2.12.2010on account of price manipulations and rigging in the stock prices

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

penny stock and everything was created artificially in order to give profit / bogus Long Term Capital Gain to the assessee for consideration of money paid by the assessee out of his / her undisclosed income which was not included in her return income. Hence, after due application of mind, I have reasons to belief that there is live link with

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

stocks were not at all treated as Penny\nStock by any controlling authority at the point of time of purchase of\nshares.\nIt is, therefore, clear that there was no lawful application of the mind\nby the AO on the information received by him nor he has made any\nenquiry to show that whatever stated in the reasons was believable

SUBHRA DUGAR,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-33(7), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

reassessment is bad in law as the reopening of assessment has been made without any independent application of mind that too on the borrowed satisfaction. 2 I.T.A. No.318/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Subhra Dugar 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee filed return of income on 04.12.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 4,34,360/-. During the year

MRS. NEELAM AGRAWAL ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-37(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. No.756/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mrs. Neelam Agarwal ………. Appellant (Pan: Adcpa3772G) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-37(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, , Addl. Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 22.07.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Revision Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Kolkat-13 [In Short Ld. “Pr. Cit”] Dated 15.03.2024 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act By Ao, Nfac, Delhi Dated 27.03.2022. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Read As Under: “1. For That The Ld. Pcit Erred In Revising The Reassessment Order Which Was Itself Invalid & Bad In Law As Sanction For Reopening Of Assessment Proceedings Was Not Taken From Prescribed Authority As Per Section 151. I.T.A. No. 756/Kol/2024 Neelam Agarwal, Ay : 2015-16

penny stocks identified by the department.” 3. The assessee has challenged the assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act on the ground that firstly, reassessment

RAJESH KUMAR DAMANI,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-50(4), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

penny stock companies listed with the Calcutta Stock Exchange which was also artificially rigged to provide entry of bogus LTCG and as per the information of DIT, the assessee had transacted in shares of M/s. BPL during AY 2012-13 and accordingly the assessee is one of the beneficiary. According to investigation by the DIT the AO notes that there

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]

penny stock shares amounting to Rs. 5,58,860/- as unexplained cash credit and the 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

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]

penny stock shares amounting to Rs. 5,58,860/- as unexplained cash credit and the 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

MANJU DEVI DAFTARI,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 36(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1571/Kol/2024 Assessment Year : 2011-12

penny stock company in the Writ filed before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and Hon’ble Court has quashed the reassessment

ALOSHA MARKETING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member)

penny stock, 'JMD Telefilm'. In just reverse procedure, the assessee is learnt to have booked STCL of Rs 3531930/- from the same scrip in the same year. In view of this, I have reason to believe that an income of Rs.4079679/- chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of sec 147. 5. In reply, the assessee filed objection

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

reassessment proceedings, inter alia, on the basis of non-supply of reasons for reopening I.T.A. No.: 1603/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Avinash Commercial Private Limited. of assessment, non-issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act and the assessment is barred by limitation. Ground Nos. 5 & 6 relates to the merits of addition

RAMOTAR CHOUDHARI HUF,KOLKATA vs. PCIT 5 KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1336/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ramotar Choudhari Huf.……..…………............…...……………....Appellant 7Th Floor, R.N 25 Fortuna Tower, 23A N.S. Road, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aanhr9093K] Vs. Pcit-5, Kolkata………….…...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Pransukha, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 06, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 09, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 18.10.2023 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr. Cit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Action Of The Pr. Cit In Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act & Thereby Directing The Assessing Officer To Frame The Assessment Afresh. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,55,970/- On 21.01.2014. Thereafter, An Information Was Received By The Assessing Officer From Investigation Wing That The Assessee Has

penny stock. The assessee placed reliance on several decisions including the decision of Kolkata ITAT in case of Balaram Gupta vs ITO (Date of order 05.10.2018) wherein the ITAT has decided the issue of LTCG on the same scrip in favour of assessee. 6.1 The assessee has further submitted that during the reassessment

SHRESTH DEALERS PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC 4(1), , KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act which are nullity and bad in law. 3. Brief facts are that the assessee filed return of income on 23.07.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 137,540/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and assessment order was accordingly framed

M/S. FOUNTAIN VANIJYA PVT. LTD (NOW MERGED WITH M/S. ASHIANA GOODS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-13(1), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, J & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 400/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 M/S. Fountain Vanijya Pvt. Limited,.........Appellant (Now Merged With M/S. Ashiana Goods Pvt. Ltd.), Ganesh Complex, Nh-6, Bombay Road, Raghudevpur, Howrah-711322 [Pan: Aabcf1407E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,...............................Respondent Ward-13(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, 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 : August 03, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 12Th, 2023 O R D E R

stock as per report furnished and has been used for generating bogus LTCG/STCL/Business loss. The complete transactions of purchase and sales of this penny scrip was managed, fabricated and manipulated to claim bogus loss/gain. Therefore, the assessee had taken the benefit of Rs 88,73,135/- during F.Y. 2011-12 relevant to A.Y. 2012-13. In view of the above

GOLDWIN FINCOM PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg&Shri Girish Agrawal]

reassessment frame vide order dated 03.12.2019 is bad in the eyes of law. 2. For that the re-assessment order dated 03.12.2019 is vitiated in law in as much as there was absolutely no independent application of mind and no independent enquiry on the part of the AO in respect of the purported information allegedly received