SHUVRO CHATTARAJ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT , BURDWAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2015-16

capital gains on asset as long term capital gains on which short term capital gains was claimed therefore, he set aside

RAI BHAGWAN DAS BAGLA BAHADURS MARWARI HINDU HOSPITAL,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 49(3) NOW, I.T.O., WARD - 44(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Rai Bhagwan Das Bagla Ito, Ward-49(3), Bahadurs Marwari Hindu 3, Govt. Place (West), Hospital Kolkata-700001, Vs. 1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Martin West Bengal Burn House, Kolkata-700001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aactr1297C Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhary, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2024

capital gains. The income tax authorities held that the capital gains should be assessed as short term capital gains on the footing

RITA GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR.2(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

capital gain and thereby denying the carry forward of long term capital loss since long term capital gain was exempt

RAM NIRANJAN BANKA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 40,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ram Niranjan Banka Acit, Circle-40 1, Surti Bagan Street, Jorasanko, 3, Govt. Place (West), Vs. Kolkata-700073, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aedpb5273P Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025

gain as long term capital gain and consequently we direct the AO treat the same long term capital gain at Rs. 4,19,61,865/- by setting

PINKY AGARWAL ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

capital gain. The gain has accordingly to be assessed as undisclosed credit u/s 68. In view of the above discussion

M/S. NISHIT AGARWAL BENEFICIARY TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC - 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

capital gain. The gain has accordingly to be assessed as undisclosed credit u/s 68. In view of the above discussion

M/S. GATEWAY FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC - 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

capital gain. The gain has accordingly to be assessed as undisclosed credit u/s 68. In view of the above discussion

PRATIK AGARWAL BENEFICIARY TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, C.C.-3(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

capital gain. The gain has accordingly to be assessed as undisclosed credit u/s 68. In view of the above discussion

RUSSEL CREDIT LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, KOL, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2018-19

Capital Gains. The predominant view is seen to be for assessing such gains under “Capital Gains”. In arriving at this

ZAFAR IQBAL,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

Capital Gain in Capital Gain Account Scheme,\n1988, before the date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act. The Ld.\nAO was also

RAMAUTAR SARAF (HUF),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 59(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain of\n5,48,40,817/-. The assessee applied the capital gain to the extent of\n5,46,52,500/- on payment

SWETA SONTHALIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Capital gain not to be charged on investment in certain bonds.— (1) Where the capital gain arises from the transfer

SAROJ GOENKA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 30(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain. If the amount of capital gain is greater than the cost of\nthe new house, the difference between

BEGRAJ AGARWAL & ORS HUF,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 34(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ito, Ward 34(1), Kolkata Begraj Agarwal & Ors. Huf Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, 110, Diamond Heritage, Unit No.609, Strand Road, Kolkata-700001 Shantipally, Kolkata-700107, Vs. West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabhb8295F Assessee By : Shri S.M. Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Amuldeep Kaur, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.01.2025

Capital Gain to the tune of ₹92,54,491/- and Short Term Capital Gain of ₹1,79,400/- on the transactions

MINAKSHI DAS,JALPAIGURI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(3),, SILIGURI

capital gain in the\nreturn of income filed by the assessee in response to notice u/s 148\nof the Act as stated

SNEHASISH BHAUMIK,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 50(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1429/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Snehasish Bhaumik Asstt. Commissioner Of Income A-3/2, Labony Estate Vs Tax, Circle – 50(1), Kolkata Salt Lake, Bidhannagar North Kolkata - 700064 [Pan : Adypb8516H] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 31/10/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Sole Issue Raised In This Appeal Is About The Correctness Of The Amount Of Capital Gain Arising From Sale Of Flat Owned By The Assessee. 3. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2014-15 On 30/09/2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.10,40,570/- & The Same Included Income From Capital Gain At Rs.4,12,278/-. Thereafter, The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 26/10/2016 & The Assessment Records Were The Subject Matter Before The Ld. Pr. Cit In The Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Act & After Culmination Of The Revisionary Proceedings, Directions Were Given To The Ld. Assessing Officer By The Ld. Pr. Cit To Pass A Fresh

capital gain falls under the category of short term capital gain or long term capital gain. The ld. Assessing Officer

SAROJ BAID,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, J & Dr. Manish Borad

capital gain and short-term capital loss. The ld. Assessing Officer was of the considered view that the assessee has dealt

SAROJ BAID,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 36(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, J & Dr. Manish Borad

capital gain and short-term capital loss. The ld. Assessing Officer was of the considered view that the assessee has dealt