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]

transferred for acquiring any undisclosed asset later after AY 2010-11. 14. Moreover, it is elementary that without purchases, there cannot be any sales. There is no quarrel even for the ld. Pr.CIT in respect to the sale figure which has been accepted by the AO. So therefore the Ld. Pr. CIT wants the AO to adopt the purchase figure

PRICE WATERHOUSE & CO., [NOW KNOWN AS PRICE WATERHOUSE & CO. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS LLP],KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 22, , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. Dcit, Circle-22, Kolkata Price Waterhouse & Co, Kolkata (Now Versus Known As Price Waterhouse & Co Chartered Accountants Llp)

transferred from earlier year. So it is crystal clear that the said capital reserve is undisclosed income of assessee introduced as capital. The above amount is income of the assessee from undisclosed source.” The assessee vide letter dated 24.07.2013 intimated that he filed Revised Return on 24.07.2013 to be the Return filed

ACIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S R. K. COMMERCIAL LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1330/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2007-08)

income from undisclosed sources, simply on the ground that quoted value of the share was very low although such quotation was much earlier to the date of sale. In this case it cannot be ignored that the entire sale consideration money was deposited by the acquirer company in an Escrow Account with HSBC and such amount remained in Escrow Account

ITO, WARD - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TRIBUTE TRADING AND FINANCE LTD.,, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

transfer." It was further observed therein.- In context of determining whether a transaction is a sham or illusory or a device or a ruse. The income tax authorities are entitled to penetrate the veil covering it and ascertain the truth. The taxing authorities are not required to put on blinkers while looking at the documents produced before them. They

SRI SUBRATA BANERJEE ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 51(1) , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

transfer." It was further observed therein.- In context of determining whether a transaction is a sham or illusory or a device or a ruse. The income tax authorities are entitled to penetrate the veil covering it and ascertain the truth. The taxing authorities are not required to put on blinkers while looking at the documents produced before them. They

ITO, WARD - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TRIBUTE TRADING AND FINANCE LTD.,, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

transfer." It was further observed therein.- In context of determining whether a transaction is a sham or illusory or a device or a ruse. The income tax authorities are entitled to penetrate the veil covering it and ascertain the truth. The taxing authorities are not required to put on blinkers while looking at the documents produced before them. They

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2235/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2013-14)

undisclosed receipt. 12. For that the appellant reserves the right to add, to alter or amplify the above grounds of appeal. 3.Ground Nos. 1,2,3, and 4 raised by the assessee relate to transfer pricing adjustment in relation to CorporateGuarantee fees to the tune of Rs. 2,18,77,327/-. 4. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the submission

KANCHAN PLYWOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., ,JALPAIGURI vs. ITO, WARD - 1(2), JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini Am]

transferred to the assessee’s bank account on the same day. According to the Learned AR no adverse view can be drawn only on this fact and drew our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of CIT vs Jamna Dass Gupta wherein the lordship on similar facts have held as under

BIDIT FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.579/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

price, premium and amount - Correspondence made for application of shares - Copy of Balance Sheet, Profit & Loss A/c, IT Ack for FY 2011-12 - Copy of Bank Statements evidencing transaction with assessee - Source of Funds for making investments in the assessee company - ROC details and relevant statement. - Copy of Resolution passed by the Board authorizing investment in shares of assessee - Reasons

DCIT, CIR.-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S JAGANNATH BANWARILAL TEXOFABS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri A.L.Saini, Am]

price, premium and amount - Correspondence made for application of shares - Copy of Balance Sheet, Profit & Loss A/c, IT Ack for FY 2011-12 - Copy of Bank Statements evidencing transaction with assessee - Source of Funds for making investments in the assessee company - Trade License/P.Tax Certificate etc. towards address proof - Copy of Resolution passed by the Board authorizing investment in shares

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

undisclosed income in the garb of long term capital gain since she has not tendered any cogent evidence to explain how the price of shares of an unknown company has jumped in no time. In support of this finding, I also garner support from the following judgements which are as under:- 1. Chandan Gupta Vs CIT (2015)229 Taxman

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

undisclosed income in the garb of long term capital gain since she has not tendered any cogent evidence to explain how the price of shares of an unknown company has jumped in no time. In support of this finding, I also garner support from the following judgements which are as under:- 1. Chandan Gupta Vs CIT (2015)229 Taxman

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(3), KOLKATA vs. M/S. GRD COMMODITIES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the cross objections of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] It(Ss)A Nos.120 To123/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2012-13

undisclosed income escaping detection. Answering this question in favour of the assessee, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “24. Coming to the second question as to whether there was failure on the part of the assessee to make a full and true disclosure of all the relevant facts. The case of the assessee is that it had disclosed

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]

price of shares for the reason that such a premium was not justified considering the book value of the shares. 3.8 The A.O. has treated the entire amount of Rs.65,50,000/-, received by the assessee on account of share subscription and share premium, as assessee's undisclosed cash credit uls.68 of the Act. Now, it needs to be examined

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]

price of shares for the reason that such a premium was not justified considering the book value of the shares. 3.8 The A.O. has treated the entire amount of Rs.65,50,000/-, received by the assessee on account of share subscription and share premium, as assessee's undisclosed cash credit uls.68 of the Act. Now, it needs to be examined

LANDIS+GYR LIMITED,SOUTH 24 PARGANAS vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(A), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] I.T.A No. 524/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13

Pricing Outcomes with Value Creation, issued in the year 2015, ‘that in some situations, the transfer or secondment of one or more employees may, depending on the facts and circumstances, result in the transfer of valuable knowhow or other intangibles from one associated enterprise to another’. Even though in the instant case, the transaction is between two unrelated enterprises

SMT. MINU GUPTA ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 44(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

undisclosed income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. We therefore direct the AO to delete the addition.” f) The BENCH “A”OF KOLKATA ITAT in the case of SHALEEN KHEMANI[ITA No.1945/Kol/2014]order dated 18.10.2017 held as under vide Page 24 Para 9.3: “We therefore hold that there is absolutely no adverse material to implicate the assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. SHRI RAMESH PRASAD SAO, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

Undisclosed investment 3. Ld. CIT(Appeals) has deleted the disallowances. Before us, Revenue is challenging deletion of four disallowances. In other words, Revenue is challenging deletion of all the disallowances except at Sr. No. 3, i.e. the disallowance made under section 40A(3). 4. Now we take the grievances of the Revenue in seriatim as raised in the grounds