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 was enhanced to ₹76,04,62,428/- by the Ld. AO while applying section 50C of the Act. e) The Ld. CIT(A) on one hand, held that the transfer took place in the AY 2009-10 as per the second supplementary agreement but also held that the cost should be taken at ₹1 Crore and the consideration should

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house should\nbe used for acquisition of the new asset, Section 54(1) would not have allowed\nadjustment and/or exemption in respect of property purchased one year prior to the\ntransfer, which gave rise to the capital gain

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, which was assessable in AY 2015-16. The assessee contends that if the transfer is considered in AY 2013-14 then there is no discussion regarding the taxation of Rs. 90,00,000/- received in AY 2015-16 by the Ld. PCIT. The Ld. PCIT while setting aside the order of the Ld. AO has held in paras

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

house property, which was also accepted in the assessment, meaning thereby that there was no deprecation claimed on the block of assets and also not found in the books of accounts and no deprecation was claimed or allowed in the assessments. The ld. AO computed the Long-Term Capital Gain

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

capital gains us 48 were altogether covered by different heads of income i.e., income from 'house property' and 'capital gains

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain arises from the transfer of a long-term\ncapital asset being buildings or lands appurtenant thereto, and being a\nresidential house, the income of which is chargeable under the head \"Income\nfrom house property

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

Capital Gain had arisen to the assessee from the transfer of residential house. The assessee was entitled to flats on four floors being 1st, 5th, 6th and 7th floors, out of which the assessee agreed to sell 1st floor unit to another party before the construction thereof i.e. before the new asset came into existence. Thus, at the time

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]

capital gain in the purchase of property within the stipulated time as contemplated u/s 54F of the Act. The assessee filed before the AO the construction agreement dated 14.07.2014 with M/s Canopy Estates (P) Ltd. ,Canopy house

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 loss /long- term capital gains as the case may be, we note that apart from placing reliance on the statements, the revenue authorities have also referred to the report of the investigation Wing which carried out search and survey in some other cases prior to the conclusion of assessment proceedings in the instant appeals and such investigation included

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 loss /long- term capital gains as the case may be, we note that apart from placing reliance on the statements, the revenue authorities have also referred to the report of the investigation Wing which carried out search and survey in some other cases prior to the conclusion of assessment proceedings in the instant appeals and such investigation included

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 loss /long- term capital gains as the case may be, we note that apart from placing reliance on the statements, the revenue authorities have also referred to the report of the investigation Wing which carried out search and survey in some other cases prior to the conclusion of assessment proceedings in the instant appeals and such investigation included

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 loss /long- term capital gains as the case may be, we note that apart from placing reliance on the statements, the revenue authorities have also referred to the report of the investigation Wing which carried out search and survey in some other cases prior to the conclusion of assessment proceedings in the instant appeals and such investigation included

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

House, J.L. Nehru Aayakar Bhawan, 7th Floor, Vs Road, Kolkata - 700071 P-7, Chowringhee Square, (PAN: AABCR3494H) Kolkata - 700069 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel Bikash Chanda, CA Respondent by : Abhijit Kundu, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 21.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed

MAYURA MOHTA,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 29,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Circle-29 Mayura Mohta Aaykar Bhavan Dakshin, 2, Sumer Trinity Towers 202, Tower-I, New Prabhadevi Road, Gariahat Road (South), Vs. Prabha Devi, Mumbai-400 025 Kolkata-700031, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aevpm3232R Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Monalisha Pal Mukherjee, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2025

house property within the period allowed under the Act. 03. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 27.07.2017, declaring total income of ₹2,54,60,430/-. During the year under consideration, the assessee declared income under the head Mayura Mohta; A.Y. 2017-18 capital gain

PADMALOCHANAN RADHAKRISHNAN,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 62, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 130/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-2015

Capital gains" is a loss and the assessee has income assessable under any other head of income, the assessee shall not be entitled to have such loss set off against income under the other head. (4)Where the net result of the computation under the head "Income from house property

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. A R SULPHONATES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

housing or real estate land and property authorities. authorities. 24 Capital Investment Leasehold properties Purchasing a freehold may require less initial property requires a capital investment larger upfront capital compared to investment. purchasing a freehold property. 25 Flexibility Leasehold properties Freehold properties offer less flexibility as provide more flexibility the lessee is bound by as the owner has the terms

ALOK GHOSH ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WD.28(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

Capital Gain be directed to be computed by considering the Indexed Cost of both the properties sold as per the provisions of section 48(2) of the Act and so also proper deduction u/s 54 of the Act be allowed for investment in new house

MEENA CHANDRA . ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-29(4)/KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2009-10 Meena Chandra Income-Tax Officer, Ward- Ee85/7, Sector Ii, Konark 29(4), Kolkata. Vs. Cooperative, Salt Lake, West Bengal-700091. (Pan: Aespc6072J) (Appellant) (Respondent)

gain on the sale of impugned house property. Considering the factual matrix and the documentary evidence placed on record, it is evidently demonstrated that a house property was constructed on the plot of land which has been sold by the assessee in the year under consideration, resulting into long term capital