RAGUVALIKA TRADING PVT LTD ( SINCE MERGED WITH M.M.MURARKA SHARE & SECURITIES PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gains does not warrant any disturbance and deserves to be accepted. Accordingly, the Grounds 1 to 3 raised by the assessee for the Asst Years 2005-06 , 2006-07 , 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed. 7. The Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee for the Asst Year 2005-06 was stated to be not pressed

RAGUVALIKA TRADING PVT LTD ( SINCE MERGED WITH M.M.MURARKA SHARE & SECURITIES PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gains does not warrant any disturbance and deserves to be accepted. Accordingly, the Grounds 1 to 3 raised by the assessee for the Asst Years 2005-06 , 2006-07 , 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed. 7. The Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee for the Asst Year 2005-06 was stated to be not pressed

RAGUVALIKA TRADING PVT LTD ( SINCE MERGED WITH M.M.MURARKA SHARE & SECURITIES PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gains does not warrant any disturbance and deserves to be accepted. Accordingly, the Grounds 1 to 3 raised by the assessee for the Asst Years 2005-06 , 2006-07 , 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed. 7. The Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee for the Asst Year 2005-06 was stated to be not pressed

RAGUVALIKA TRADING PVT LTD ( SINCE MERGED WITH M.M.MURARKA SHARE & SECURITIES PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gains does not warrant any disturbance and deserves to be accepted. Accordingly, the Grounds 1 to 3 raised by the assessee for the Asst Years 2005-06 , 2006-07 , 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed. 7. The Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee for the Asst Year 2005-06 was stated to be not pressed

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. VEDA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance @ 1% of dividend income u/s 14A of the Act. 4. In the result, the cross objections of the assessee for both the asst years are allowed for statistical purposes. 5. Treatment of income from shares – whether to be treated as capital gains

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. VEDA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance @ 1% of dividend income u/s 14A of the Act. 4. In the result, the cross objections of the assessee for both the asst years are allowed for statistical purposes. 5. Treatment of income from shares – whether to be treated as capital gains

M/S ESTIN TIE UP PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the two cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

gains as provided u/s 48(ii). The issue of cost in this case is governed by section 49(iii)(e) read with sec 47(vib). The cost of acquisition therefore is to be taken which was in the hands of the previous owner of the property. Since the property was acquired by the previous owner before 1.4.1981 the cost

A.C.I.T.,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S ESTIN TIE UP PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the two cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

gains as provided u/s 48(ii). The issue of cost in this case is governed by section 49(iii)(e) read with sec 47(vib). The cost of acquisition therefore is to be taken which was in the hands of the previous owner of the property. Since the property was acquired by the previous owner before 1.4.1981 the cost

RAVI JALAN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, Ground r.w

capital gains have to be computed after determining the FMC of the assets u/s 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act. He argued that the determining the FMC of the assets u/s 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act. He argued that the determining the FMC of the assets u/s 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act. He argued that

ACIT, CIRCLE - 31, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PRADYUMNA DALMIA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

Capital Gains of Rs. 14,03,563/- (exempt) for the Asst Year 2007-08 which do not form part of total income. The Learned AO called for information regarding the incurrence of expenditure by the assessee for the purpose of earning this dividend income. In response to this, the assessee replied that no expenses were incurred for the purpose

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

disallowed the claim of Rs. 12,24,360/- u/s 54F of the Act for construction cost of new residential property for want of supporting documents and considered the taxability of JDA on the basis of the latter registered agreement dated 26.09.2014 and allowed the deduction u/s 54EC of the Act from the capital gains

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

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

Gain from sale of Bonds and right to property against Long Term Capital Loss on sale of Government Securities, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that even though the Long term Capital Loss on sale of Government Securities as claimed by the assessee after applying Cost Inflation Index was disallowed

ITO, WARD - 12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. LYONS & ROSES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

capital gain and not the business income. “ CO No. 52/2009 [ITA No.1149/Kol/09 A.Y 2005-06] 1 a) For that, the application of Rule 80 of the Income Tax Rules in the case of the Assessee is bad in law and, therefore, cannot be sustained. b) For that, in the original Assessment Order, disallowance

DCIT, CIR-36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SURAJ KHANDEL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of both the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Yamini Khandelwal Asst. Commissioner Of Income 5, Amratolla Street Vs Tax, Circle-36, Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 Pan: Afupk6167K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

capital gain arising on sale of investment in shares as business income. 2.a) For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in holding that the disallowance

YAMINI KHANDEL WAL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of both the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Yamini Khandelwal Asst. Commissioner Of Income 5, Amratolla Street Vs Tax, Circle-36, Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 Pan: Afupk6167K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

capital gain arising on sale of investment in shares as business income. 2.a) For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in holding that the disallowance

DCIT, CIR-36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SMT YAMINI KHANDELWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of both the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Yamini Khandelwal Asst. Commissioner Of Income 5, Amratolla Street Vs Tax, Circle-36, Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 Pan: Afupk6167K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

capital gain arising on sale of investment in shares as business income. 2.a) For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in holding that the disallowance

SURAJ KHANDELWAL,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RG-36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of both the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Yamini Khandelwal Asst. Commissioner Of Income 5, Amratolla Street Vs Tax, Circle-36, Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 Pan: Afupk6167K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

capital gain arising on sale of investment in shares as business income. 2.a) For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in holding that the disallowance

I.T.O WD - 44(4) ,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI SAILESH JALAN, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

Capital Gains u/s.l0(38) of the Income Tax Act. In this regard, it is seen that the A.O. has simply disallowed