Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.22 seconds)
Nicholson Vanijya Private Limited , ... vs Ito, Ward - 1(2), Kolkata , Kolkata on 8 March, 2019 cites

Dolarrai Hemani, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer -Ward 34(3), ... on 2 December, 2016

27. The assessee has furnished all evidences in support of the claim of the assessee that it earned LTCG on transactions of his investment in shares. The purchase of shares had been accepted by the AO in the year of its acquisition and thereafter until the same were sold. The off market transaction for purchase of shares is not illegal as was held by the decision of Co- ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Dolarrai Hemani vs. ITO in ITA No. 19/Kol/2014 dated 2.12.2016 and the decision by Hon'ble Calcutta High court in PCIT Vs. BLB Cables & Conductors Pvt. Ltd. in ITAT No. 78 of 2017 dated 19.06.2018 wherein all the transactions took place off market and the loss on commodity exchange was allowed in favour of assessee. The transactions were all through account payee cheques and reflected in the books of accounts. The purchase of shares and the sale of shares were also reflected in Demat account statements. The sale of shares suffered STT, brokerage etc. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be held that the transactions were bogus. The following judgments of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court:-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 4 - Cited by 37 - Full Document

Principal Commissioner Of Income ... vs M/S. Blb Cables And Conductors Pvt. Ltd on 19 June, 2018

18. From the facts discussed in para 7 and 8 supra, and the ratio decidendi of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High court and other Hon'ble High Courts, and particularly the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of M/s. Blb Cables And Conductors,(supra) we, therefore, respectfully following the same, allow the claim of loss as claimed by the assessee.
Calcutta High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 32 - A Bose - Full Document

Dcit, Central Circle - 2(2), Kolkata , ... vs M/S. Rosemary Sponge & Ispat Private ... on 30 November, 2018

In the case of DCIT Vs. Sunita Khemka, ITAT Kolkata ruled that the AO cannot treat a transaction as bogus only the basis of suspicion or surmises. He has to bring material on record to support his findings that there has been a collusion/connivance between the Broker and the Appellant for the introduction of its unaccounted money. A transaction of purchase and sale of shares, supported by Contract Notes and d-mat statements and account payee cheques cannot be treated as bogus.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 34 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Smt. Dipika Shroff, Kolkata vs Ito, Ward - 34(3), Kolkata , Kolkata on 2 January, 2019

17. We note that in an identical/similar case, wherein the AO made addition of the LTCG claim made on sale of M/s. KAFL scrips on similar reasoning based on the SEBI interim report, investigation report of the Wing of the Department and certain statements recorded by the Department in the case of Sanjiv Shroff Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 1197/Kol/2018 Dated 02,01.2019 wherein the same Bench observed as under and gave relief to the assessee:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 23 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

C.C.E., Bhubaneswar-1 vs M/S. Champdany Industries Ltd on 8 September, 2009

In the light of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries (supra) and considering the facts in totality, the claim of the assessee cannot be denied on the basis of presumption and surmises in respect of penny stock by disregarding the direct evidences on record relating to the sale/purchase transactions in shares supported by broker's contract notes, confirmation of receipt of sale proceeds through regular banking channels and the demat account.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 46 - Full Document

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Smt. Santosh Jawa [Alongwith Ita No. ... on 25 July, 2005

19. Since, when the Assessing Officer has not brought any material on record to show that the assessee has paid over and above the purchase consideration as claimed and evident from the bank account then, in the absence of any evidence it cannot be held that the assessee has introduced his own unaccounted money by way of bogus long term capital gain. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court dated 11-09-2017in case of CIT vs. Smt. Pooja Agrawal [ ITA no 385/2011 ] has upheld the finding of the Tribunal on this issue in para 12 as under:-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 8 - Cited by 17 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next