INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUR MANGAL HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

invested by the assessee, among many other scrips. As pointed out on behalf of the assessee, the transaction of existence of purchase and sale of Alankit Ltd. giving rise to long-term capital loss claimed by assessee appears to be fully corroborated by the documentary evidences. The shares have been credited in the De-mat account and transferred

ZAFAR IQBAL,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

transfer for\ncorrection of the plot numbers and settlement of the dispute. This\nbeing so, the assessee can be said to be the owner of the plots from\nthe date of correction of the land record. Since the Ld. CIT(A) has\nmerely stated that the cost of improvement always includes\nconstruction of asset other than original asset and does

ITO,WARD-8(2),KOL, KOLKATA vs. M/S. INDUS REALTY PVT. LTD. , KOLKATA.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

price is justified or not, it is for the businesses to take a call. Moreover, all the share applicants are group companies and hence situations may arise where funds are transferred from one to another depending upon their consolidated business strategy and outlook. In any case, while suspicion may arise that the transaction smacks of unaccounted money being circulated

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

transferring, holding, disposing, and otherwise dealing and investing in shares, stocks, debentures, bonds, land, building, properties, obligation and securities. The company also carries on Software business as manufacturer, buyer, seller, trader, importer, exporter, distributor, broker, stockiest, and omission agent. The company was incorporated as a private company in 1976, promoted by Giriraj Kishor Agarwal and Tunu Agarwal. Other key persons

SAMRAT FINVESTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENT. CIR. 4(2), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 which is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. 9. For that on the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that the assessee company had discharged its onus by furnishing all the relevant documents in connection with the share capital raised and also proved the identity, creditworthiness of the share application

SAMRAT FINVESTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 5(2) (NOW DCIT, CENT.CIR. 4(2)), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 which is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. 9. For that on the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that the assessee company had discharged its onus by furnishing all the relevant documents in connection with the share capital raised and also proved the identity, creditworthiness of the share application

SAMRAT FINVESTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENT. CIR. 4(2), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 which is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. 9. For that on the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that the assessee company had discharged its onus by furnishing all the relevant documents in connection with the share capital raised and also proved the identity, creditworthiness of the share application

SAMRAT FINVESTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENT. CIR. 4(2), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 which is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. 9. For that on the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that the assessee company had discharged its onus by furnishing all the relevant documents in connection with the share capital raised and also proved the identity, creditworthiness of the share application

MOHAMMED KHALID MASUD,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-33, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.171/Kol/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Mohammed Khalid Masud……..…..……............…...……………....Appellant 70, Karaya Road, Circus Row Kolkata - 700019. [Pan:Afapm6677G] Vs. Acit, Circle-33, Kolkata…...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhishak Bansal, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Divakar Chakraborty, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 15, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 21 , 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.11.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 389 Days. A Separate Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed, Which Is Further Supported By An Affidavit Of The Petitioner Namely Mohammed Khalid Masud. Considering The Submissions Made In The Affidavit, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned.

unexplained investment in the property by the assessee. Merely, rejection of the reply of assessee without giving valid reasons cannot justify the action of the subordinate authorities. 9. The Sub-section (2) clearly mandates that where the assessee claims that the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority exceeds the fair market value of the property

M/S ARROWSPACE TRADECOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-10(2), KOLKATA

In the result, in light of the discussion made above, this appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

price per share. However, assessee have now updated and correct data and can produce correct details before the honorable member. 4. For that the Ld. AO erred in assessing Rs. 4,57,06,000/- as unexplained investment without issuing show cause notice. For that under the facts and circumstances, the addition made is liable to be deleted. 5. That

SUBODH ADHIKARY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 51(1), KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

unexplained investment are concerned, the same were without jurisdiction as the AO has no authority under the Act to initiate the enquiry and call for record/explanation from the assessee on that date when the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny and the there was no conversion of the limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny. The Ld. AR submitted

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND SPONGE AND IRON PRIVATE LIMITED , PATNA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

investments. We have held that cash\nloans/investments cannot be treated as income of the assessee besides\nholding that documents seized were to be read as a whole and pick and\nchoose or to make further estimates therefrom was not permissible.\nTherefore, our decision would, mutatis mutandis, apply to this appeal\nas well. Consequently, ground no.1 of Revenue's appeal

WINSHER SALES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

price and represented brought forward investment from the earlier year however the AO treated only Rs. 11,00,000/- out of the total consideration for sale of shares as an unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and added the same to the income of the assessee in the assessment framed u/s 143(3)/263 of the Act dated

BALHANUMAN COMMODEAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(4), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13

unexplained cash credit. The relevant extracts from the order are as under: 11. We have gone through the facts of the case, the written submissions filed by both the Ld. AR and the Ld. Sr. DR as well as the case laws cited. A similar issue came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court

UNISYS SOFTWARES AND HOLDING IND. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12

transferred subsequently was requested to do the needful but he informed that all record except for those of the AY 2011-12 were available. Since none appeared on behalf of the assessee, the case was heard with the assistance of the Ld. CIT(DR). 7. Brief facts of the case are that the Ld. AO on the basis of information

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND CEMENT & ROOFINGS PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

investments. We have held that cash\nloans/investments cannot be treated as income of the assessee besides\nholding that documents seized were to be read as a whole and pick and\nchoose or to make further estimates therefrom was not permissible.\nTherefore, our decision would, mutatis mutandis, apply to this appeal\nas well. Consequently, ground no.1 of Revenue's appeal

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

unexplained cash credit towards bogus long term capital gain and undisclosed brokerage expenses. 8. Aggrieved, all the four assessees preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A) against the action of ld. AO but failed to succeed as ld. CIT(A)s have given almost identical finding in the instant appeals confirming the action of ld. AOs holding that bogus loss

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

unexplained cash credit towards bogus long term capital gain and undisclosed brokerage expenses. 8. Aggrieved, all the four assessees preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A) against the action of ld. AO but failed to succeed as ld. CIT(A)s have given almost identical finding in the instant appeals confirming the action of ld. AOs holding that bogus loss