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

condone the delay for cause of justice. 2 Shuvro Chattaraj, AY: 2015-16 2. That the Ld. Pr. CIT passed a perverse Order in setting aside on grounds that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 3. That the Ld. Pr. CIT erred in law in interpreting the provisions of section

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA vs. SMT. SHIKHA ROY, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

condone the delay and admit this appeal. 3. The assessee is an individual and filed her return of income for the Assessment Year 2016-17 on 28/06/2016, declaring total income of Rs.6,21,37,340/-. In this return of income, she declared income from rent from house property and long term capital gains

INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-31(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. DILIP B BESAI (HUF), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

delay in filing the appeals is condoned. 3. The only issue to be decided in these appeals of the revenue is as to whether the ld CITA is justified in treating the assessee as an investor of shares as against trader of shares treated by the ld AO in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The facts

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6 KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LOKENATH SARAF SECURITIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed as not maintainable and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

condone the delay and admit the appeal of revenue for hearing. 2 ITA No.300-418/Kol/2011, AY 2006-07 Lokenath Saraf Securities Ltd. 3. We find from the quantum involved in the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue is having tax effect of less than Rs 10 lacs. The CBDT in its recent Circular No. 21 / 2015 dated 10.12.2015 had categorically

M/S. LOKNATH SARAF SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed as not maintainable and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

condone the delay and admit the appeal of revenue for hearing. 2 ITA No.300-418/Kol/2011, AY 2006-07 Lokenath Saraf Securities Ltd. 3. We find from the quantum involved in the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue is having tax effect of less than Rs 10 lacs. The CBDT in its recent Circular No. 21 / 2015 dated 10.12.2015 had categorically

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. C.D. EQUIFINANCE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed, while the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

condone the said delay and proceed to dispose of this appeal of the Revenue on merit. 4. In Ground No 1 raised in this appeal, the Revenue has challenged the action of the ld. CIT(Appeals) in accepting the treatment given by the assessee to the profit from sale of certain shares as business income instead of short-term capital

D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KILBURN ENGINEERING LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2009-10

condone the delay in filing the appeal by the revenue. ITA No.1987/Kol/2013-M/s. Kilburn Engineering Ltd. A.Y.2009-10 4. As far as the issue raised by the revenue in the grounds of appeal is concerned, the same relates to eligibility of the assessee’s for exemption u/s 54G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) in respect of a sum of Rs.10

SMT. ROMI LAHIRI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-51, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm]

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee purchased a plot of land on 5.2.2004 for Rs. 3,72,140/- and sold it away on 7.12.2005 for Rs.9,93,700/-, but claimed both long term capital gains

RAJIB CHAKRABORTY,KOLKATA vs. ITO- WARD-30(3), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

gain time then the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning delay the Could should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a looser and he too would have incurred quiet a large litigation expenses. It would be a ITA No.201, 202 and 203/Ahd/2020 salutary guideline that when courts

ACIT, CIRCLE-32, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MRS. ISHITA MOHATTA, KOLKATA

In the result the Cross Objection, No

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Acit, Cir-32, Kolkata Vs. Mrs. Ishita Mohatta 10B, Middleton Row, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata – 24, Park Street, Magma House, 9Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 071. 700 016. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajfpk 3943 P (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & Co No.45/Kol/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs. Acit, Cir-32, Kolkata Mrs. Ishita Mohatta 24, Park Street, Magma House, 9Th 10B, Middleton Row, 3Rd Floor, Floor, Kolkata – 700 016. Kolkata – 700 071. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajfpk 3943 P (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The grievances raised by the Revenue are as follows: In the fact and circumstance of the case the ld CIT(A)-9, Kolkata has erred in deleting the disallowance made by the AO on account of and deduction U/s 54F of the I.T. Act,61. 4. The facts

BANI BROTO BANERJEE ,KOLKATA vs. CIT(A), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 520/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Bani Broto Banerjee,…………………..…………Appellant Sanskriti, Flat – 3A, 148, Rashbehari Avenue, Near Deshapriya Park, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Abppb0424P] -Vs.- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals),……Respondent Aayakar Bhawan Dakshin, 2, Gariahat Road (South), Kolkata-700031 Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Smt. Ranu Bisws, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 18, 2024 O R D E R

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 3. The assessee has taken three grounds of appeal, out of which Ground No. 2 is the substantial ground of appeal. In this ground, the grievance of the assessee is that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the order of ld. Assessing Officer vide which deduction of interest

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/-.

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 and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is erred in accepting the view

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. SHRI SAROJ KUMAR PODDAR, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble]

condonation of delay and it could not beyond the period of limitation without applying for condonation of delay and it could not beyond the period of limitation without applying for condonation of delay and it could not I.T.A. No. 2406/Kol/201 I.T.A. No. 2406/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Saroj Kumar Poddar Shri Saroj Kumar Poddar have been entertained

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THE PEERLESS GEN. FIN. & INV. CO. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15

condone the impugned delay of 30 days in filing. The case is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. The Revenue pleads the following substantive grounds in its instant appeal:- “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in allowing Long Term Capital Loss of Rs.109,80,30,873/- on transfer of Government Securities after applying Cost Inflation Index

ITO, WARD - 6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. DEEPLOK FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed, while the C

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

capital gain as held by the ld. CIT(Appeals). We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) on this issue and restore that of the Assessing Officer. The appeal of the Revenue is accordingly allowed. 7. As regards the Cross Objection filed by the assessee, it is observed that there is a delay of 21 days

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

capital gains was declared. He observed that statute did not reject or frown upon conversion of stock in trade into investment and the said conversion was permissible. Commissioner (Appeals) referred to the Circular No. 4/2007 dated 15th June, 2007 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, which stipulates that two portfolios one for stock in trade

ACIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S R. K. COMMERCIAL LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1330/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2007-08)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as follows: (i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made u/s 68 of the IT Act ignoring the fact that the alleged sale of shares of “Dehra

M/S. B.L. TAK AND SONS (HUF),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 34(1) , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Manish Borad&Shri Anikesh Banerjee]

condone the delay of four days for filing the appeal. 3 I.T.A. No.2622/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15 M/s B.L. Tak & Sons (HUF) 4. Brief fact of the case is that the assessee is a Hindu Undivided Family. During the impugned assessment year, the assessee set off a loss amount of Rs. 54,19,374/-. The assessee filed the return