M/S ESTIN TIE UP PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) nor the assessee had presented the correct facts to apply the law and compute capital gains correctly. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed long-term capital gains on the transfer of land. The Assessing Officer made a significant addition, but the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, directing recomputation of capital gains. Both the assessee and the Revenue appealed to the Tribunal.
What were the issues?
The key issues involved the correct year of transfer for capital gains, the valuation of the property for cost of acquisition and sale consideration, and whether the transaction constituted capital gains or business income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 50C,Section 55A,Section 49(1)(iii)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- DIT v. Nokia Networks OY276 citing358 ITR 259 · 2013 · HC
- CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini228 citing86 Taxmann.com 94 · 2017 · SC · Read judgment
- Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT201 citing313 ITR 263 · 2009 · ITAT
- 306 ITR 13 citing306 ITR 1
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
These cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2013-14 dated 15.11.2019. 1. 1. Both the appeals were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.
The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the followi
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 50C
- M N S Barium Salts, Kadapa vs ITO, Ward-1, KadapaITA 2412/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Sawalchand Chunilal Bafna HUF, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer-16(1)(1), MumbaiITA 7492/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2011-12
- Jagdishbhai Vasharambhai Italiya, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 150/AHD/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Rohini Ramhari Bhadale, Pune vs Assessing Officer Ward 2(2) Pune, PuneITA 2767/PUN/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Sweta Somani, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 44(2), KolkataITA 1656/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Middlex, Puri vs. Commnr. Of State Tax, Banijyakar Bhawan, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Sunadei Indane Gramin Vitrak, Nayagarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Cuttack, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Sunanda Raul vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods Nad Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Zakir Hussain Ali Khan vs. Additional Commissioner (Appeals), BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Manorama Nayak, Khorda vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar Iv Circle, KhurdaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026