Search: capital gains

JET AGE SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-III

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

ITA/79/2010HC Calcutta15 Sept 2022

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

Capital Gains. The appeal accordingly stood allowed. The Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal challenging the said order. It was contended by the revenue that Clause (b) of Section 94(7) as amended provides the period for which the units are required to be held for more than 9 months from the record date as against the period of 3

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

Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated

ITA/125/2018HC Calcutta27 Jun 2024

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

gain. The Assessing Officer treated it as revenue receipt and according levied tax by assessment order dated 31.12.2009 under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter Page 5 of 77 referred to as ‘the Act, 1961’) relating to the assessment year 2006-07. 6. In appeal filed by the respondent ITC before the CIT[Appeal], the appeal

M/S. GAYAN TRADERS LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-II

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

ITA/48/2009HC Calcutta30 Sept 2022

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

Section 143(3)Section 260A

7,37,467/-. The assessing officer while completing the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act by order dated December 31, 2007 accepted the long term capital gains

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA 4 vs. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LIMITED

In the result, the appeal (ITAT/233/2018) is dismissed and the

ITAT/233/2018HC Calcutta30 Nov 2021

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 30Th November, 2021 Appearance :-

Section 2Section 260ASection 43BSection 50

3 “On going through the order passed by the tribunal, we find that the tribunal was considering six issues in all. The revenue has raised three substantial questions of law before us which are covered in the six issues which were before the tribunal. The first of the issues was whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short

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

ITA/49/2009HC Calcutta30 Sept 2022

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

Section 143(3)Section 260A

Section 143(3) of the Act dated December 31, 2007. The CIT(A) pointed out that the assessee had maintained separate accounts for trading in shares and in this account, shares were bought and sold at frequent interval and even on daily settlement basis. The shares by way of investment were held for period varying from one day to more