ANJANA CHAUDHURY,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT, CIR. (1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sri Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

section 234.A and 234B of the Act and/or the calculation of tax and interest thereon is incorrect. 7. That the appellant humbly craves leave to add. alter, withdraw grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” 2. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out some facts which were placed before the ld. CIT(A) also

NEHA DIWAN,HINDMOTOR vs. ITO WARD - 23(1), HOOGHLY

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

234 ITR 167 (Ker) ii. K. Joseph Jacob vs. Agrl. ITO & Anr. (1991) 190 ITR 464 (Ker) iii. Malayil Mills vs. State of Kerala - (TRC Nos. 15 and 69 of 1991) 6. As regards section 68

AROTO TRADE INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-9(1), KOLKATA

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 this was not justified and thus the same be deleted. 5) For that the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the interest u/s 234 A/B/C the same was unjustified and hence the same be directed to recomputed the interest as per law. 6) The appellant craves leave to produce additional evidences in terms

DCIT, CC-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SONATA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 677/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,..........Appellant Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 -Vs.- M/S. Sonata Construction Pvt. Limited......Respondent Ground Floor, 18, A.P.C. Road, Kolkata-700009 [Pan: Aakcs7085G] -A N D - I.T.A. No. 753/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-2018

section 68 of the Act is not justified but 3 ITA No.753/KOL/2022 (A.Y. 2017-2018) M/s. Sonata Construction Pvt. Limited simultaneously observed that the purpose of such huge credits, huge loans have not been explained and he came to a conclusion that the assessee must have carried out the transactions for the purpose of earning commission and accordingly computed

M/S. SONATA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 677/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,..........Appellant Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 -Vs.- M/S. Sonata Construction Pvt. Limited......Respondent Ground Floor, 18, A.P.C. Road, Kolkata-700009 [Pan: Aakcs7085G] -A N D - I.T.A. No. 753/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-2018

section 68 of the Act is not justified but 3 ITA No.753/KOL/2022 (A.Y. 2017-2018) M/s. Sonata Construction Pvt. Limited simultaneously observed that the purpose of such huge credits, huge loans have not been explained and he came to a conclusion that the assessee must have carried out the transactions for the purpose of earning commission and accordingly computed

RAJARSHI BHATTACHARYA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 50(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Rakesh Mishra

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Section 115BBE of the IT Act 1961 was not justified and without any basis and uncalled for. The addition therefore be deleted. 11. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals erred in upholding that the material based on which

HIMADRI VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, (OSD), WARD-1(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

68 of the Act. 11. 14.06.2018 Copy of the appeal filed by the assessee was received in the office of the Id. Ld. Assessing Officer on 14.06.2018. 12. 29.01.2019 Notice under section 154 issued by the Ld. ACIT(OSD), Ward-(i), Kolkata for the mistake in not levying interest under section 234A of the Act and proposing

NALANDA BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 763/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Nalanda Builders Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata 5, Sree Charan Sarani Vs Bally Howrah – 711201 (West Bengal) [Pan : Aabcn7736Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dt. 23/11/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Issues Raised In Ground Nos. 2 To 4 Is Against The Confirmation Of Addition As Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Difference Between The Value Taken By The Assessee & The Fair Market Value (Fmv) U/S 50C Of The Act. 3. The Facts In Brief Are That During The Year, The Assessee Sold Two Flats For An Aggregate Consideration Of Rs.3,00,00,000/- & Accordingly Addition Of Rs.3,26,37,314/- Was Made To The Income Of The Assessee. In 2

234/- through their seller-broker M/s. Gateway Financial Services Pvt. Ltd resulting in facilitation of pre-arranged accommodation entry of LTCG to them. This evidence was utilised by the Assessing Officer in treating their Long Term Capital Gains from transaction in shares of Radford Global Ltd as bogus and making addition u/s 68 of the Act. 22. Regarding the report

SAMRAT FINVESTORS PRIVATE LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD- 10(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 840/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Samrat Finvestors Private Limited Income Tax Officer, Ward – 10(2), 20/1, Maharshi Debendra Vs Kolkata 2Nd Floor, Room No. 13A Kolkata - 700007 [Pan : Aadcs4698G] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/R Revenue By : Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dt. 27/06/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee In The Instant Appeal Has Raised Two Effective Issues In The Various Grounds Before Us Which Are Summed Up As Under:- (I) That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.3,98,50,208/- As Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Alleged Bogus Loss In Share Trading & In F&O Segment. (Ii) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.11,58,944/- As Made By The Assessing

234/- through their seller-broker M/s. Gateway Financial Services Pvt. Ltd resulting in facilitation of pre-arranged accommodation entry of LTCG to them. This evidence was utilised by the Assessing Officer in treating their Long Term Capital Gains from transaction in shares of Radford Global Ltd as bogus and making addition u/s 68 of the Act. 22. Regarding the report

ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. ASHIRBAD REAL ESTATE & TRANSPORT PVT. LTD., ASANSOL

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee in CO 1/2012 is dismissed and revenue appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 2008-09 (Appellant ) (Respondent) A.C.I.T., Circle-1, -Versus- Ashirbad Real Estate & Asansol Transport Pvt.Ltd. Burdwan (Pan:Aaeca 8075 C) C.O.No.1/Kol/2012 A/O Ita No.1591/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ashirbad Real Estate & -Versus- A.C.I.T., Circle-1, Transport Pvt.Ltd., Burdwan Asansol (Pan Aaeca 8075 C) (Cross Objector) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri S.S.Alam, Cit (Dr) For The Respondent : Shri Aravind Agarwal, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2015. Order Per Shri M.Balaganesh, Am 1. This Appeal Of The Revenue & Cross Objection Of The Assessee Arises Out Of The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) In Appeal No142/Cit(A)/Asl/Range-1/Asl/10-11 Dated 27.09.2011 For The Asst Year 2008-09 Arising Out Of The Order Of The Learned Assessing Officer Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

section 68 of the Act would not be attracted on the purchases made on credit.” In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and respectfully following the judicial precedents as stated supra, we are not inclined to interfere with the findings of the Learned CITA on this ground. Accordingly, the Ground No. 2 raised by the revenue is dismissed

M/S. MAHABIR TRADERS,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 44(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

68 of the IT Act 1961 was bad in law and was not justified and thus the same deserves to be deleted. 2) For that in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals erred in upholding the addition of Rs.32,03,363 being based on hypothetical calculation made by the Assessing Officer

M/S BIHARI LAL MALPANI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 43(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey & Shri M. Balaganeshi.T.A. No.527/Kol/2017 (Assessment Year 2013-14) M/S Bihari Lal Malpani Ito, Ward-43(1), Kolkata. -Vs- [Pan :Adupm 6438 R]

section 68 of the Act by observing that the assessee had not reflected the exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act in the return of income and no revised return of income was filed by the assessee and the nature of transactions of aforesaid capital gain are bogus. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. We have

ZULA MERCHANDISC PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

234/- through their sellerbroker M/s. Gateway Financial Services Pvt. Ltd resulting in facilitation of pre-arranged accommodation entry of LTCG to them. This evidence was utilised by the Assessing Officer in treating their Long Term Capital Gains from transaction in shares of Radford Global Ltd as bogus and making addition u/s 68 of the Act. 22. Regarding the report

MEGAPODE VYAPAAR PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

234/- through their seller broker M/s. Gateway Financial Services Pvt. Ltd resulting in facilitation of pre-arranged accommodation entry of LTCG to them. This evidence was utilized by the Assessing Officer in treating their Long-Term Capital Gains from transaction in shares of Radford Global Ltd as bogus and making addition u/s 68 of the Act. 22. Regarding the report

MEGAPODE VYAPAAR PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

234/- through their seller broker M/s. Gateway Financial Services Pvt. Ltd resulting in facilitation of pre-arranged accommodation entry of LTCG to them. This evidence was utilized by the Assessing Officer in treating their Long-Term Capital Gains from transaction in shares of Radford Global Ltd as bogus and making addition u/s 68 of the Act. 22. Regarding the report

GILT COMMODITIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-3(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

234/- through their sellerbroker M/s. Gateway Financial Services Pvt. Ltd resulting in facilitation of pre-arranged accommodation entry of LTCG to them. This evidence was utilised by the Assessing Officer in treating their Long Term Capital Gains from transaction in shares of Radford Global Ltd as bogus and making addition u/s 68 of the Act. 22. Regarding the report

NAMOKAR BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am]

234/- through their seller- broker M/s. Gateway Financial Services Pvt. Ltd resulting in facilitation of pre-arranged accommodation entry of LTCG to them. This evidence was utilised by the Assessing Officer in treating their Long Term Capital Gains from transaction in shares of Radford Global Ltd as bogus and making addition u/s 68 of the Act. 22. Regarding the report

ITO, WD.9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S MAHARAJ VINCOM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata……………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…..…..... Respondent 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] C.O. No.6/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…....... Cross-Objector 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] Vs Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata …………..….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 07, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: This Appeal By The Revenue & Corresponding Cross-Objection By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 08.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

234 ITR 170 (Delhi) presided over by R. C. Lahoti, J. (as learned Chief Justice of India then was) and Bawa Abhai Singh v. Dy. CIT [2002] 253 ITR 83 (Delhi) comprising Arijit Pasayat and D. K. Jain (as their Lordships then were). It is quite possible that had the Court in Consolidated Photo been made aware of the consistent