MANGILAL JAIN ,DARJEELING vs. ITO, WARD - 3(3), DARJEELING , DARJEELING

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2014-15 Mangilal Jain Income Tax Officer, बनाम / C/O Advocate Pradip Ward-3(3), Nr. Lal V/S. Lakhotia, 2Nd Floor, Metro Kothi, Darjeeling Plaza, Sf Road, Siliguri-734005 [Pan No.Afkpj 4178 D] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Dhiraj Lakhotia, A.R अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri C.J. Singh, Jcit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 05-03-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 15-05-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Siliguri’S Order Dated 22.03.2018 Passed In Case No.69/Cit(A)/Slg/2016-17, Involving Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Grievance Raised In The Instant Appeal Seeks To Reverse Both The Lower Authorities Findings Treating His Short Term Capital Loss (Stcl) Arising From Sale Of Shares After Payment Of Security Transaction Tax (Stt), Amounting To ₹1,92,320/- As Bogus Unexplained Cash Credits. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reads As Under:- “4. Decision :- I Have Perused The Assessment Order, The Grounds Of Appeal & The Submissions Made By The Ld.. A/R On Behalf Of The Appellant. My Observations & Findings Are As Under :- 4.1. The Present Appeal Emanates After Disallowing Rs. 11,92,320/- Arising Out Of Shares Transaction & Treated The Same As Bogus. In This Case The Assessee Purchased 32000 Shares Of Global Infratech & Finance Ltd. Through Eureka Stock & Shares Broking Services Limited @ Rs. 77.37 Per Share Aggregating To Rs. 24,79,714/- On 11.02.2014 & Further Sold The

survey u/s 133A and recording of statement u/s 131. It has been pointed out by the A.O. that it has been admitted by a number of persons involved in running such entities of their role in arranging these share transaction. It has been revealed that the shares of Global Infratech & Finance Ltd. have been used by different share brokers

ITO, WD-12(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SHEE SEN LEATHER PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue (Ground No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1044/Kol/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) I.T.O, Ward-12(4), Kolkata Vs. M/S Shee Sen Leather Pvt. Ltd. 114/C, Matheswartolla Road, Aayakarbhavan (7Th Floor), P-7, Kolkata – 700 046. Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 69. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 3938 C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit(Dr) Respondent By : Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate & V.N. Purohit, Fca सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18/10/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-11, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By The Cit(A)-Xii, Kolkata, In Appeal No.111/Xii/Cir-12/13-14, Dated 19.02.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S.143(3) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 28.03.2013. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Follows: “1. That Is The Facts & In Law Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Amounting To Rs.29,84,786/- Made The Ao On Account Of Difference In Valuation In Closing Stock & G.P. On Unaccounted Sales Of Chemicals Which Was Detected On The Basis Of Findings Of Survey U/S 133A.

price, therefore, the inventory taken by them can never be tallied with the inventory of the assessee and therefore the addition made by the AO based on average inventory is not acceptable. Moreover, the AO has not rejected the books of accounts of the assessee and made the addition based on estimate, which is against the settled position

M/S RASSCO STEELS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE PR. CIT-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & M.Balaganesh, Am]

133A on the assessee's business premises on 21.09.2011, a sum Rs. 83,42,000/- was declared as extra income by way of undisclosed sales of' Rs, 33,36,84.520/- on which 2".5% G.P. was calculated as given in the tax audit report filled with the original ITR. The revised return in response to 148 notice had been filed

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

133A at the business premises of M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd on 21.01.2015 wherein he stated that Sri Jagadish Prasad Purohit is the Managing Director of the group companies and proprietor of BC Purohit & Co. and is an employee of the group companies managed by Sri Jagadish Prasad Purohit and was also the director of the companies, and as regards

M/S. GATEWAY FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., ,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

133A at the business premises of M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd on 21.01.2015 wherein he stated that Sri Jagadish Prasad Purohit is the Managing Director of the group companies and proprietor of BC Purohit & Co. and is an employee of the group companies managed by Sri Jagadish Prasad Purohit and was also the director of the companies, and as regards

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

133A at the business premises of M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd on 21.01.2015 wherein he stated that Sri Jagadish Prasad Purohit is the Managing Director of the group companies and proprietor of BC Purohit & Co. and is an employee of the group companies managed by Sri Jagadish Prasad Purohit and was also the director of the companies, and as regards

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

133A at the business premises of M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd on 21.01.2015 wherein he stated that Sri Jagadish Prasad Purohit is the Managing Director of the group companies and proprietor of BC Purohit & Co. and is an employee of the group companies managed by Sri Jagadish Prasad Purohit and was also the director of the companies, and as regards

ITO, WARD - 12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. HARSHWARDHAN GEMS P. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of revenue and that of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

133A of the Act was conducted on the business premises of the assessee on 05.11.2004. During the course of survey, the books of account and documents were found and were impounded, inventorised and marked as HG-1 to HG-33. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings on going through the return of income noticed that the assessee

HARSHWARDHAN GEMS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of revenue and that of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

133A of the Act was conducted on the business premises of the assessee on 05.11.2004. During the course of survey, the books of account and documents were found and were impounded, inventorised and marked as HG-1 to HG-33. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings on going through the return of income noticed that the assessee

ITO(TDS),WD-58(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PACEMAN SALES PROMOTION PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: : Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

transfer of the property, but it is one for work and labour. 7.2. We find that the provisions of section 194C of the Act specify that any person responsible for paying any sum to any contractor for carrying out any work was ITA No. 1296/Kol/2012 & 6 & CO No.12/Kol/2013 C-AM M/s.Paceman Sales Promotion Pvt. Ltd required to deduct

MAHAPRABU BRICKFIELD,DHANIAKHALI vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-24(1), HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

transferred to ACIT, Circle 24(1). He submitted that the ACIT, Circle – 24(1), Hooghly completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act, without giving any notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. Thus he submits that the assessment is bad in law. For this proposition, he relied on the following decision: i. 2020(11) TMI 310 – ITAT Lucknow

M/S. SAREGAMA INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, (TDS) CIRCLE - 59, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

133A of the Act i.e. the TDS survey conducted on assessee’s business premises on 13.09.2007, it was observed that the assessee did not deduct tax at source on lump sum payment made on outright purchase of music rights. The AO required the assessee to explain as to why the assessee not treated as assessee in default u/s

BALLARAM HANUMANDAS CHARITABLE TRUST,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOL., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13

transferring the same in the form of donation through the web of financial transactions. In either case, SHG & PH was charging commission for providing the above stated accommodation entries. During survey at SHG & PH it was ascertained that assessee-trust has received donation amounting to ₹68.50 lakh from SHG & PH through banking channel against the cash provided

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]

133A of the Act was conducted on 19.05.2015 by 2 I.T.A. Nos.390, 399, 400 & 401/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to2013-14 & 2015-16 Ashika Stock Broking Limited. DDIT(Inv), Unit-2(2), Kolkata at the office/business premises of the assessee and it was found during the course of survey that the assessee company has made transactionsin penny stocks on behalf

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]

133A of the Act was conducted on 19.05.2015 by 2 I.T.A. Nos.390, 399, 400 & 401/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to2013-14 & 2015-16 Ashika Stock Broking Limited. DDIT(Inv), Unit-2(2), Kolkata at the office/business premises of the assessee and it was found during the course of survey that the assessee company has made transactionsin penny stocks on behalf

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]

133A of the Act was conducted on 19.05.2015 by 2 I.T.A. Nos.390, 399, 400 & 401/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to2013-14 & 2015-16 Ashika Stock Broking Limited. DDIT(Inv), Unit-2(2), Kolkata at the office/business premises of the assessee and it was found during the course of survey that the assessee company has made transactionsin penny stocks on behalf

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]

133A of the Act was conducted on 19.05.2015 by 2 I.T.A. Nos.390, 399, 400 & 401/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to2013-14 & 2015-16 Ashika Stock Broking Limited. DDIT(Inv), Unit-2(2), Kolkata at the office/business premises of the assessee and it was found during the course of survey that the assessee company has made transactionsin penny stocks on behalf

N C SHAW AND CO BEVERAGES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS CIRCLE 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

survey u/s 133A(2A) of the Act was conducted in the business premises of the assessee on 25.02.2020 and subsequently, a notice u/s 201(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee for the F.Y. 2014-15 relevant to the A.Y. 2015-16 due to default in deduction of tax or failing to deduct tax towards credit of income