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

Gain instead of business income. Hence, the Assessment Order cannot be considered as erroneous, in view of the clear-cut instruction by CBDT that income arising from transfer of unlisted shares would be considered under the head 'Capital

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

gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. The transfer is defined under section 2(47) of the Act as under: 2(47) "transfer", in relation to a capital asset, includes,— (i) the sale, exchange or relinquishment of the asset; or (ii) the extinguishment of any rights therein

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

income tax authorities held that the capital gains should be assessed as short term capital gains on the footing that the flat might have been used for business

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]

gains” of a business in an Indian State and did not exclude the business itself. The loss suffered by the assessee in the pharmaceutical business carried on in the State of Baroda had to be deducted in computing the business income of the assessee for the purposes of the business profits tax.” 7.2. We have also perused the decision

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GOVIND COMMERCIAL CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 770/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,.......Appellant Circle-7, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-69 -Vs.- M/S.R.K.B.K. Fiscal Services Pvt. Limited,.Respondent [Now Known As Ambuja Neotia Holdings P. Ltd.] Block-4B, 3Rd Floor, Ecospace Business Park, Premises No.11F/11, Action Area-Ii, New Town, Kolkata-700160 [Pan:Aabcr5623E] & I.T.A. No. 771/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.......Appellant Circle-7(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-69 -Vs.- Smt. Gayatri Neotia,…….……..……………..Respondent (Legal Heir Of Late Suresh Kumar Neotia) 7/2, Queen’S Park, Ballygunge, Kolkata-19 [Pan:Abkpn2315E] & I.T.A. No. 772/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 1

capital gain”, rather it is to be assessed separately as a business income. For this finding, it ITA No. 770/KOL/2010

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. R.K.B.K. FISCAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. NOW KNOW AS AMBUJA NEOTIA HOLDINGS P LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 770/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,.......Appellant Circle-7, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-69 -Vs.- M/S.R.K.B.K. Fiscal Services Pvt. Limited,.Respondent [Now Known As Ambuja Neotia Holdings P. Ltd.] Block-4B, 3Rd Floor, Ecospace Business Park, Premises No.11F/11, Action Area-Ii, New Town, Kolkata-700160 [Pan:Aabcr5623E] & I.T.A. No. 771/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.......Appellant Circle-7(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-69 -Vs.- Smt. Gayatri Neotia,…….……..……………..Respondent (Legal Heir Of Late Suresh Kumar Neotia) 7/2, Queen’S Park, Ballygunge, Kolkata-19 [Pan:Abkpn2315E] & I.T.A. No. 772/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 1

capital gain”, rather it is to be assessed separately as a business income. For this finding, it ITA No. 770/KOL/2010

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SMT. GAYATRI NEOTIA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SURESH KUMAR NEOTIA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 770/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,.......Appellant Circle-7, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-69 -Vs.- M/S.R.K.B.K. Fiscal Services Pvt. Limited,.Respondent [Now Known As Ambuja Neotia Holdings P. Ltd.] Block-4B, 3Rd Floor, Ecospace Business Park, Premises No.11F/11, Action Area-Ii, New Town, Kolkata-700160 [Pan:Aabcr5623E] & I.T.A. No. 771/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.......Appellant Circle-7(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-69 -Vs.- Smt. Gayatri Neotia,…….……..……………..Respondent (Legal Heir Of Late Suresh Kumar Neotia) 7/2, Queen’S Park, Ballygunge, Kolkata-19 [Pan:Abkpn2315E] & I.T.A. No. 772/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 1

capital gain”, rather it is to be assessed separately as a business income. For this finding, it ITA No. 770/KOL/2010

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. LIKHAMI COMMERCIAL COMPANY LTD. AMALGAMATED INTO CHOICEST ENTERPRISES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 770/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,.......Appellant Circle-7, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-69 -Vs.- M/S.R.K.B.K. Fiscal Services Pvt. Limited,.Respondent [Now Known As Ambuja Neotia Holdings P. Ltd.] Block-4B, 3Rd Floor, Ecospace Business Park, Premises No.11F/11, Action Area-Ii, New Town, Kolkata-700160 [Pan:Aabcr5623E] & I.T.A. No. 771/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.......Appellant Circle-7(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-69 -Vs.- Smt. Gayatri Neotia,…….……..……………..Respondent (Legal Heir Of Late Suresh Kumar Neotia) 7/2, Queen’S Park, Ballygunge, Kolkata-19 [Pan:Abkpn2315E] & I.T.A. No. 772/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 1

capital gain”, rather it is to be assessed separately as a business income. For this finding, it ITA No. 770/KOL/2010

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SMT. BIMALA DEVI PODDAR, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 770/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,.......Appellant Circle-7, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-69 -Vs.- M/S.R.K.B.K. Fiscal Services Pvt. Limited,.Respondent [Now Known As Ambuja Neotia Holdings P. Ltd.] Block-4B, 3Rd Floor, Ecospace Business Park, Premises No.11F/11, Action Area-Ii, New Town, Kolkata-700160 [Pan:Aabcr5623E] & I.T.A. No. 771/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.......Appellant Circle-7(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-69 -Vs.- Smt. Gayatri Neotia,…….……..……………..Respondent (Legal Heir Of Late Suresh Kumar Neotia) 7/2, Queen’S Park, Ballygunge, Kolkata-19 [Pan:Abkpn2315E] & I.T.A. No. 772/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 1

capital gain”, rather it is to be assessed separately as a business income. For this finding, it ITA No. 770/KOL/2010

SKYBRIDGE REAL ESTATES LLP,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 34, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Skybridge Real Estates Llp Dcit, Circle -34, 24, Hemant Basu Sarani, Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, 110, Mangalam-A, 5Th Floor, Room Shanti Pally, E.M. Bypass, Vs. No.507, Kolkata-700001, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acvfs7139R Assessee By : Shri N.S. Saini, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Ruchika Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2024

business income from operation of sale of shares. The assessee has also shown the income of ₹5,70,98,591/- from sale of investments in its profit and loss account. The ld. AO further noted that in the computation of income, the assessee has shown Rs. 1,47,26,999/- as long term capital gain

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

income in the garb of long term capital gain. The gain has accordingly to be assessed as undisclosed credit u/s 68. In view of the above discussion, I find no infirmity in the orders of the Ld. AO, and I confirm the same, holding the claim of STCL of Rs.16,40,62,61/- to be bogus. Therefore this ground

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

income in the garb of long term capital gain. The gain has accordingly to be assessed as undisclosed credit u/s 68. In view of the above discussion, I find no infirmity in the orders of the Ld. AO, and I confirm the same, holding the claim of STCL of Rs.16,40,62,61/- to be bogus. Therefore this ground

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

income in the garb of long term capital gain. The gain has accordingly to be assessed as undisclosed credit u/s 68. In view of the above discussion, I find no infirmity in the orders of the Ld. AO, and I confirm the same, holding the claim of STCL of Rs.16,40,62,61/- to be bogus. Therefore this ground

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

income in the garb of long term capital gain. The gain has accordingly to be assessed as undisclosed credit u/s 68. In view of the above discussion, I find no infirmity in the orders of the Ld. AO, and I confirm the same, holding the claim of STCL of Rs.16,40,62,61/- to be bogus. Therefore this ground

TRIDENT COMMERCE(P)LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

gain of Rs. 20,66,939/- as business income. 5. In the appellate proceedings, Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition by observing and holding as under: “5.2.1 Grounds 2 & 3: Rs. 20,66,939 held as Business Profit:- These grounds pertain to the income of Rs. 20,66,939/- shown by the appellant as Short Term Capital

HARSHAD MANSUKHLAL SHAH. ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT,CIR-29,KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 948/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Harshad Mansukhlal Shah Acit, Circle-29, Kolkata 1208, C2 Wing Sheetal Nath Vs Gordia Nagar, Kurla Mumbai - 700077 [Pan : Alops0164Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca Revenue By : Shri Swapan Kumar Bera, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/05/2024 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. 10/12/2021, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 577 Days. On The Last Date Of Hearing I.E., 21/03/2024, The Bench After Considering The Condonation Application & Other Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Has Condoned The Delay In Filing Of The Instant Appeal Vide Its Order Dt. 21/03/2024, Which Forms Part Of The Record. Thus, We Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Erred In Accepting The View Of The Ao That The Disclosed Short-Term Capital Gain Of Rs. 18,67,181/- As Business Income Of Rs. 18,67,181/-.

business income. Apart from the F&O, the other credits in the income and expenditure account only includes the income from bank interest and short term capital gain

ORIENTAL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

business loss, capital gains etc. while the income of the trust is to be computed as per the normal commercial

ITO, WARD-50(1), KOLKATA vs. DHIRENDRA NATH SAMADDAR, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

income as capital gains. The assessee also claimed cost of acquisition, improvement and also claimed deduction u/s 54B of the Act while offering capital gains for taxation. The Assessing Officer, however, treated the entire sale consideration received by the assessee as business