Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 30 (0.83 seconds)Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Bhagwati Prasad Agarwal on 29 April, 2009
12. Consistent with the view taken therein, as the facts and circumstances of
this case are same as the facts and circumstances of the cases of Navneet Agarwal
(supra), we delete the addition made u/s 68 of the Act, on account of sale of shares
in the case of both the assessees. The consequential addition u/s 69C is also deleted.
Sanjeev Goel (Huf) , Kolkata vs Ito, Ward - 45(3), Kolkata , Kolkata on 24 August, 2018
4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to rival contentions. There is no
dispute that assessee having derived her LTCG on transfer of shares held in M/s
Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. Learned Departmental Representative fails to dispute that
very issue stands adjudicated in assessee's favour in co-ordinate bench's decision in
ITA No.354Kol/2018 in Sanjeev Goel (HUF) vs. ITO decided dated 24.08.2018 as
follows:-
Sri Gautam Kumar Pincha, Kolkata vs Ito, Ward 34(4), Kolkata, Kolkata on 15 November, 2017
• Shri Gautam Kumar Pincha vs. ITO, ITA No. 569/Kol/2017, dt. 15/11/2017
• ITO vs. Shri Shaleen khemani, ITA No. 1945/Kol/2014, dt. 18/10/2017
• Mahendra Kumar Baid vs. ACIT, Circle-35; ITA No. 1237/Kol/2017; order dt.
18/08/2017
• Kiran Kothari HUF vs. ITO, ITA No. 443/kol/2017, order dt. 15/11/2017
The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court on similar facts, had in the following cases,
upheld the claim of the assessee:-
Ito, Ward-32(4), Kolkata, Kolkata vs Shri Shaleen Khemani,, Kolkata on 18 October, 2017
• Shri Gautam Kumar Pincha vs. ITO, ITA No. 569/Kol/2017, dt. 15/11/2017
• ITO vs. Shri Shaleen khemani, ITA No. 1945/Kol/2014, dt. 18/10/2017
• Mahendra Kumar Baid vs. ACIT, Circle-35; ITA No. 1237/Kol/2017; order dt.
18/08/2017
• Kiran Kothari HUF vs. ITO, ITA No. 443/kol/2017, order dt. 15/11/2017
The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court on similar facts, had in the following cases,
upheld the claim of the assessee:-
Mahendra Kumar Baid, Kolkata vs Acit Circle 35, Kolkata, Kolkata on 18 August, 2017
• Shri Gautam Kumar Pincha vs. ITO, ITA No. 569/Kol/2017, dt. 15/11/2017
• ITO vs. Shri Shaleen khemani, ITA No. 1945/Kol/2014, dt. 18/10/2017
• Mahendra Kumar Baid vs. ACIT, Circle-35; ITA No. 1237/Kol/2017; order dt.
18/08/2017
• Kiran Kothari HUF vs. ITO, ITA No. 443/kol/2017, order dt. 15/11/2017
The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court on similar facts, had in the following cases,
upheld the claim of the assessee:-
Kiran Kothari Huf, Kolkata vs Ito, Ward 35(3), Kolkata, Kolkata on 15 November, 2017
• Shri Gautam Kumar Pincha vs. ITO, ITA No. 569/Kol/2017, dt. 15/11/2017
• ITO vs. Shri Shaleen khemani, ITA No. 1945/Kol/2014, dt. 18/10/2017
• Mahendra Kumar Baid vs. ACIT, Circle-35; ITA No. 1237/Kol/2017; order dt.
18/08/2017
• Kiran Kothari HUF vs. ITO, ITA No. 443/kol/2017, order dt. 15/11/2017
The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court on similar facts, had in the following cases,
upheld the claim of the assessee:-
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax- 3 vs M/S.Rungta Properties Pvt. Ltd on 17 February, 2017
• CIT vs. Shreyashi Ganguli (ITA No. 196 of 2012) (Cal HC) 2012 (9) TMI 1113
• CIT vs. Rungta Properties Private Limited (ITA No. 105 of 2016) (Cal HC)dt.
08/05/2017
• CIT vs. Bhagwati Prasad Agarwal (2009 TMI-34738 (Cal HC) in ITA No. 22
of 2009 dated 29.04.2009
C.I.T. (Central) Calcutta vs Daulat Ram Rawatmull on 12 September, 1972
In the case of
CIT(Central), Kolkata vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull reported in 87 ITR
349, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, the onus to prove that the
apparent is not the real is on the party who claims it to be so. The
burden of proving a transaction to be bogus has to be strictly
discharged by adducing legal evidences, which would directly prove
the fact of bogusness or establish circumstance unerringly and
reasonably raising an interference to that effect. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Umacharan Shah & Bros. Vs. CIT 37 ITR 271 held
that suspicion however strong, cannot take the place of evidence.
Messrs. Lalchand Bhagat Ambical Ram vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bihar & ... on 14 May, 1959
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court way back in the case of Lalchand Bhagat
Ambica Ram vs. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) held that assessment could not
be based on background of suspicion and in absence of any evidence to
support the same. The Hon'ble Court held: