RASHMI SINGHANIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Gargi.T.A. No.208/Ran/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Rashmi Singhania.…....……………… … ...........…………………………Appellant C/O. S. Singhania & Co. 7Th Floor, Room No.3, 2, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkata-700013. [Pan: Aswps1056N] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(4), Jamshedpur...........……………………...………..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri R. K. Singhania, Advocate,Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Chinmaya Aurangabadkar, Jcit, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing :March 24, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 30, 2021 Order The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 01.02.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Jamshedpur [Hereinafter As ‘Cit(A)’]. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

unexplained sources. 4. The main reason on the basis of which the Assessing Officer has made the impugned addition is that the assessee has shown the aforesaid long-term capital gains from the share transactions made in respect of shares of Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. As per the information available with the Assessing Officer, the said Kailash Auto Finance

DCIT CIRCLE-1, RANCHI vs. SHRI ANUP CHAWLA, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

unexplained investment” u/s 69B. 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding the addition as erroneous on the grounds that the amendment of s. 56(2)(vii)(b) was with effect from 01.04.2014, thus, giving preference to strict literal construction and ignoring the spirit of law. 4. Ground nos. 1 & 2 relates to deletion of addition

SRI BINOY KUMAR SINGH, ,DALTONGANJ vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, RANCHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2015-16

unexplained investment addition of ₹115,12,000/- invoked during the regular assessment in issue. Learned departmental representative fails to dispute the clinching fact that the impugned addition u/s 56(2)(vii) never formed subject- matter of assessee’s grounds in the lower appellate proceedings nor any such issue had arisen in the assessment order. This tribunal’s co-ordinate bench

GOLDEN GOENKA COMMERCE PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2(1),, JAMSHEDPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.11/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Golden Goenka Commerce Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Rajgaj Traders Pvt. Ltd.)............................……….……Appellant 25A, S.P Mukherjee Road, 4Th Floor, Bhawanipore, Kol-25, [Pan: Aabcr7503F] Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Jamshedpur..…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kumar Pranab, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 4, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 10, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Cit(A)”], Dated 21.12.2018, Arising Out Of Assessment Framed Under Section 147 Read With Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) For The Assessment Year 2011–12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, The Sum & Substance Of Which Is That The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Addition Of ₹4,73,00,000 Made By The Assessing Officer (“Ao”) Under Section 68 Of The Act Towards Share Capital & Share Premium, Ignoring The Documentary Evidences Placed On Record & Without Conducting Any Independent Enquiry. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011–12 Declaring Total Income Of ₹16,67,088. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened

unexplained cash credit and added to the income of the assessee. Apart from the above, the AO also disallowed set-off of certain losses against capital gains and finally assessed the total income at ₹4,89,67,090 vide order dated 21.12.2018. 4. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) sustained the addition holding that in absence of compliance to summons

ACIT CIRCLE-1 , DHANBAD vs. M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LTD , DHANBAD

gains of\nsubsequent years without any limit whatsoever.\"\n8. In the light of the judicial precedents on the issue especially that\nof the Hon'ble Gujarat High court in the case of General Motors India\nPvt. Ltd. (supra), we find that the issue is covered in favour of the\nassessee, therefore, the ground taken by the revenue is rejected

M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LTD ,DHANBAD vs. ACIT CIR-1 , DHANBAD

gains of\nsubsequent years without any limit whatsoever.\"\n8. In the light of the judicial precedents on the issue especially that\nof the Hon'ble Gujarat High court in the case of General Motors India\nPvt. Ltd. (supra), we find that the issue is covered in favour of the\nassessee, therefore, the ground taken by the revenue is rejected

ACIT CIR-1 , DHANBAD vs. M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LTD , DHANBAD

gains of\nsubsequent years without any limit whatsoever.\"\n8. In the light of the judicial precedents on the issue especially that\nof the Hon'ble Gujarat High court in the case of General Motors India\nPvt. Ltd. (supra), we find that the issue is covered in favour of the\nassessee, therefore, the ground taken by the revenue is rejected