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

stock exchange and demat accounts and also it has been claimed that in one case there is a loss and there is no addition u/s 68 of the Act but without going into the merits of the case even on legal ground itself, we, in view settled judicial procedure referred hereinabove, are inclined to hold that there is a violation

M/S. NISHIT AGARWAL BENEFICIARY TRUST ,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

stock exchange and demat accounts and also it has been claimed that in one case there is a loss and there is no addition u/s 68 of the Act but without going into the merits of the case even on legal ground itself, we, in view settled judicial procedure referred hereinabove, are inclined to hold that there is a violation

PURUSHOTTAM DAS AGARWAL ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 35(1) , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Years :2012-13 Soumitra Choudhury V/S. Acit, Circle-12 28C, Satish Mukherjee 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Road, Kolkata-700026 Kidwai Road, [Pan No.Acnpc 4627 Q] Kolkarta-16 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Miraj D Shah, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sankar Halder, Jcit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 13-03-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing Assessment Year :2015-16 Purushottam Das Agarwal V/S. Income Tax Officer, C/O Balaji Enterprises, Ward-35(1), Aayakar 83/85 N.S. Road, Ground Bhawan Porva, 110, Floor, Kolkata Shantipally, Kokata- [Pan No.Actpa 9138 Q] 107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Subash Agarwal Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sankar Halder, Jcit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 14-03-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 15-03-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- These Two Assessees Have Filed Their Instant Appeal(S) For Assessment Year(S) 2012-13 & 2015-16 Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax

transfer forms. The transaction of purchase of shares could not be cross verified. The shares of the company was declared as "Penny Stock" by SEBI and the broker Sanju Kabra; through whom the shares were sold by the assessee was indicted for manipulating the prices

SOUMITRA CHOUDHURY ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 22 , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Years :2012-13 Soumitra Choudhury V/S. Acit, Circle-12 28C, Satish Mukherjee 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Road, Kolkata-700026 Kidwai Road, [Pan No.Acnpc 4627 Q] Kolkarta-16 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Miraj D Shah, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sankar Halder, Jcit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 13-03-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing Assessment Year :2015-16 Purushottam Das Agarwal V/S. Income Tax Officer, C/O Balaji Enterprises, Ward-35(1), Aayakar 83/85 N.S. Road, Ground Bhawan Porva, 110, Floor, Kolkata Shantipally, Kokata- [Pan No.Actpa 9138 Q] 107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Subash Agarwal Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sankar Halder, Jcit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 14-03-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 15-03-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- These Two Assessees Have Filed Their Instant Appeal(S) For Assessment Year(S) 2012-13 & 2015-16 Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax

transfer forms. The transaction of purchase of shares could not be cross verified. The shares of the company was declared as "Penny Stock" by SEBI and the broker Sanju Kabra; through whom the shares were sold by the assessee was indicted for manipulating the prices

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

prices of the scrip. Further the directors in Rockon Fintech were also associated with other penny stock companies. For instance Shri Tushar Rane was associated with Banas Finance Ltd. Further the company has itself also engaged in buying and selling I.T.A. No.: 724/KOL/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Navansh Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. penny stock. The company has made huge trades

PRAKASHO DEVI SARIA,SILIGURI vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 3(1), SILIGURI, SILIGURI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T. A No. 2360/Kol/2017 A.Y 2014-15 Prakasho Devi Saria Vs. Cit(A), Siliguri Pan: Agzpd611L (Appellant) (Respondent)

penny stocks was nothing but a well thought manipulation to book manufactured loss in connivance with the entry operators/ shares brokers. In case of Sh. Avtar Singh, Sirsa vs Department Of Income Tax on 8 November, 2012 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALCHANDIGARH BENCH 'A' CHANDIGARH ITA No. 948/CHD/2011 Assessment Year: 2008-09 the honorable ITAT has held the share

NAVIN KUMAR KAJARIA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 35, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

transfer forms. The transaction of purchase of shares could not be cross verified. The shares of M/s Prime Capital Markets Ltd was declared as "Penny Stock" by SEBI and the broker Sanju Kabra, through whom the shares were sold by the assessee was indicted for manipulating the prices

SMT. SUSHILA DEVI KAJARIA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 36, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

transfer forms. The transaction of purchase of shares could not be cross verified. The shares of M/s Prime Capital Markets Ltd was declared as "Penny Stock" by SEBI and the broker Sanju Kabra, through whom the shares were sold by the assessee was indicted for manipulating the prices

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

penny stock, which was later upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). Taking cognizance of merits of the self-speaking contents of the assessment order, this order deserves to be upheld by the Hon'ble ITAT.” c) The ld. Counsel for the assessee repeated his arguments, as mentioned (supra), and further emphasized that the AO has tried to project the case

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)”

penny stocks at the platform of BSE has been received by the Investigation Wing received by the Investigation Wing, Kolkata where it is seen that the scrip , Kolkata where it is seen that the scrip CRESSANDA, KAILASH AUTO & RAJLAXMI KAILASH AUTO & RAJLAXMI is used for providing accommodation entry in the form of is used for providing accommodation entry

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

price of the alleged two companies, he finally observed that the trading loss of ₹27,22,778/- and ₹13,73,451/- incurred by the assessee in stock trading of BCSL and CCLII respectively, is bogus and total of these two losses i.e. ₹40,96,229/- deserves to be disallowed. Accordingly, income of the assessee assessed

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

price of the alleged two companies, he finally observed that the trading loss of ₹27,22,778/- and ₹13,73,451/- incurred by the assessee in stock trading of BCSL and CCLII respectively, is bogus and total of these two losses i.e. ₹40,96,229/- deserves to be disallowed. Accordingly, income of the assessee assessed

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]

price when the syndicate wanted to provide accommodation entries for trading loss. The AO also noted that due to the transactions of purchase and sale of penny stocks, the assessee has declared less taxable income. Hence, summons u/s. 131 of the Act was also issued to M/s. Trans Scan Securities Pvt. Ltd. and the assessee. The statements of the broker

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]

penny stocks and, therefore, the loss generated from dealing in the above equity shares was apparently accommodation entries and was rightly rejected by the authorities below. The Ld. D.R also submitted that the case is squarely covered by the decision of Principal CIT Vs Swati Bajaj [2022] 446 ITR 56 (Cal) and therefore, the order

DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GUJARAT NRE COKE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy& Sri Aby T. Varkey)

penny from the AE, so the facts of the case are different and case law is distinguishable and, therefore, the Hon'ble High Court's order cannot come to the rescue of the Revenue. We find that the Ld. AR pointed out that in the said case, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court did not answer the specific question

DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GUJARAT NRE COKE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy& Sri Aby T. Varkey)

penny from the AE, so the facts of the case are different and case law is distinguishable and, therefore, the Hon'ble High Court's order cannot come to the rescue of the Revenue. We find that the Ld. AR pointed out that in the said case, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court did not answer the specific question

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]

transferred to the beneficiaries. It was found that the assessee has received Rs. 10,00,000/- on 14.10.2010 which was not 3 I.T.A. Nos.390, 399, 400 & 401/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to2013-14 & 2015-16 Ashika Stock Broking Limited. shown in the books of account of the assessee for financial year 2010-11 relevant to AY 2011-12. Accordingly

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]

transferred to the beneficiaries. It was found that the assessee has received Rs. 10,00,000/- on 14.10.2010 which was not 3 I.T.A. Nos.390, 399, 400 & 401/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to2013-14 & 2015-16 Ashika Stock Broking Limited. shown in the books of account of the assessee for financial year 2010-11 relevant to AY 2011-12. Accordingly