M/S. INDI STOCK PRIVATE LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA- II

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA

business income. Considering the total investment income to that of the short term capital gains which was treated as business

PRINCIPAL COMM OF INCOME TAX 3, KOLKATA vs. M/S BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED

The appeal is dismissed and the substantial

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 25Th August, 2022 Appearance : Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. ….For Appellant Mr. R.K. Murarka, Sr. Adv. Ms. Sutapa Roychowdhury, Adv. Ms. Aratrika Roy, Adv. …For Respondent The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated October 28, 2016, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata, In I.T.A No.775/Kol/2015 For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration :- “Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench Erred In Quashing The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax –3, Kolkata Passed

income is to be treated as capital gain but not as either capital receipt or business income. This is one of the probable

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ITC LIMITED

Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI,HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ

gain arising from the transfer of a long-term capital asset;” Section 2 (47) of The Income Tax Act 1961:- “(47) “"transfer", in relation to a capital asset, includes,— (i) the sale, exchange or relinquishment of the asset ; or Page 53 of 77 (ii) the extinguishment of any rights therein ; or (iii) the compulsory acquisition thereof under

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. RUSSEL CREDIT LIMITED

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ,HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

Capital Gain instead of income from business as the same was appearing in the Balance Sheet of the company as stock

PRINCIPAL COMM OF INCOME TAX -4, KOLKATA vs. M/S LINDE INDIA LIMITED

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

income chargeable under the head profits and gains of business or profession, this Court is of the considered view that, no disallowance in respect thereof can be made by invoking the provisions of Section 40a(ia) of the Act. 25. It is not in dispute that during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee company has filed complete details

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL -1, KOLKATA vs. PURVANCHAL LEASING LTD.

In the result, the appeal (ITAT/203/2017) fails and is

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

income from trading in shares as capital gains and not business income without determining whether shares held by the assessee

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, KOLKATA vs. SMT. SHIKHA ROY

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Capital Gains” instead of income under the head “Profit and Gains of Business or Profession? We have heard Mr. Smarajit

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LARGE TAXPAYERS UNITS),KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN COPPER LTD

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

income including long term capital gain. Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) qua this issue and the same is 11 hereby upheld. We also hold that as per provisions of section 72 of the Act, the unabsorbed business

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA - 4, KOLKATA vs. M/S JCT LIIMITED

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam A N D The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date: November 25, 2021. Appearance : Mr. P.K. Bhowmick, Adv. … For The Appellant Mr. Asim Choudhury, Adv. … For The Respondent The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 1St June, 2016 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “D” Bench, Kolkata In Ita No.1983/Kol/2013 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Revenue Has Framed The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Our Consideration: “(A) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Tribunal Was Erred In Law In

income including long term capital gain. Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) qua this issue and the same is hereby upheld. We also hold that as per provisions of section 72 of the Act, the unabsorbed business

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-SILIGURI vs. SHEKHAR AGARWAL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

business and financial assets and the allegations made by the department is unfounded. Further it was stated that the assessee is a regular investor in mutual funds and equity shares of various quoted companies listed on BSE and NSE and she has been earning capital gains both short term and long term and they have been accordingly taxed

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9, KOLKATA vs. PUSPA DEVI TIKMANI

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

business and financial assets and the allegations made by the department is unfounded. Further it was stated that the assessee is a regular investor in mutual funds and equity shares of various quoted companies listed on BSE and NSE and she has been earning capital gains both short term and long term and they have been accordingly taxed

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, KOLKATA vs. KRISHNA KUMAR PARSURAMKA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

business and financial assets and the allegations made by the department is unfounded. Further it was stated that the assessee is a regular investor in mutual funds and equity shares of various quoted companies listed on BSE and NSE and she has been earning capital gains both short term and long term and they have been accordingly taxed

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ASANSOL KOLKATA vs. RAKESH JHUNJHUNWALA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

business and financial assets and the allegations made by the department is unfounded. Further it was stated that the assessee is a regular investor in mutual funds and equity shares of various quoted companies listed on BSE and NSE and she has been earning capital gains both short term and long term and they have been accordingly taxed

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA vs. AAYUSH JHUNJHUNWALA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

business and financial assets and the allegations made by the department is unfounded. Further it was stated that the assessee is a regular investor in mutual funds and equity shares of various quoted companies listed on BSE and NSE and she has been earning capital gains both short term and long term and they have been accordingly taxed

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA vs. POOJA JHUNJHUNWALA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

business and financial assets and the allegations made by the department is unfounded. Further it was stated that the assessee is a regular investor in mutual funds and equity shares of various quoted companies listed on BSE and NSE and she has been earning capital gains both short term and long term and they have been accordingly taxed

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL -1, KOLKATA vs. SURAJ SAHANA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

business and financial assets and the allegations made by the department is unfounded. Further it was stated that the assessee is a regular investor in mutual funds and equity shares of various quoted companies listed on BSE and NSE and she has been earning capital gains both short term and long term and they have been accordingly taxed

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-15, KOLKATA vs. SMT. BABITA AGARWAL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

business and financial assets and the allegations made by the department is unfounded. Further it was stated that the assessee is a regular investor in mutual funds and equity shares of various quoted companies listed on BSE and NSE and she has been earning capital gains both short term and long term and they have been accordingly taxed

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9, KOLKATA vs. GITESH TIKMANI

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

business and financial assets and the allegations made by the department is unfounded. Further it was stated that the assessee is a regular investor in mutual funds and equity shares of various quoted companies listed on BSE and NSE and she has been earning capital gains both short term and long term and they have been accordingly taxed