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]

capital gain (pages 29 to 30) ; copy of board resolution dated 2.4.2005 (page 31) ; copy of board resolutions from 23.1.2003 to 24.2.2005 (pages 32 to 52) ; copy of board resolutions from 2.4.2005 to 3.3.2006 (pages 53 to 59) ; copy of computation of income for AY 2006-07 (pages 60 to 61) ; copy of tax audit report

VIKASH SOLVEXTRACTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ground Nos

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr.A.L. Saini, Am]

gain of Rs.4,31,47,708/- and the business income of Rs. 62,05,051/-. The assessee objected against the Assessing Officer’s action of application of section 45(2) by stating the following reasons: i. The assessee’s land had been a “Capital Asset” in its hands and it was disclosed in the assessee’s Balance Sheet

VIKASH SOLVEXTRACTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ground Nos

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr.A.L. Saini, Am]

gain of Rs.4,31,47,708/- and the business income of Rs. 62,05,051/-. The assessee objected against the Assessing Officer’s action of application of section 45(2) by stating the following reasons: i. The assessee’s land had been a “Capital Asset” in its hands and it was disclosed in the assessee’s Balance Sheet

VIKASH SOLVEXTRACTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ground Nos

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr.A.L. Saini, Am]

gain of Rs.4,31,47,708/- and the business income of Rs. 62,05,051/-. The assessee objected against the Assessing Officer’s action of application of section 45(2) by stating the following reasons: i. The assessee’s land had been a “Capital Asset” in its hands and it was disclosed in the assessee’s Balance Sheet

VIKASH SOLVEXTRACTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ground Nos

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr.A.L. Saini, Am]

gain of Rs.4,31,47,708/- and the business income of Rs. 62,05,051/-. The assessee objected against the Assessing Officer’s action of application of section 45(2) by stating the following reasons: i. The assessee’s land had been a “Capital Asset” in its hands and it was disclosed in the assessee’s Balance Sheet

VIKASH SOLVEXTRACTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ground Nos

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr.A.L. Saini, Am]

gain of Rs.4,31,47,708/- and the business income of Rs. 62,05,051/-. The assessee objected against the Assessing Officer’s action of application of section 45(2) by stating the following reasons: i. The assessee’s land had been a “Capital Asset” in its hands and it was disclosed in the assessee’s Balance Sheet

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]

capital gain deleting penalty is a possible view. Arguing thus, learned counsel for the assessee prayed to delete the penalty

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

capital gain scheme and specially for the assessee which has come out of the BIFR only because of receipt of money from the sale of land and it has to invest for shifting of plant and machinery to start manufacturing the machines to be delivered as per orders to avoid the heavy penalty

SRI SURYA PRAKASH BAGLA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR-VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 398/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Surya Prakash Bagla -Vs- Dcit, Central Circle-Vii, Kolkata [Pan: Aebpb 4558 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Capital Gain” in A.Y. 2010-11 as was already decided in the aforesaid consolidated Order Nos. 236-242 dated 06.08.2012. 5. For that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) is wholly wrong and unjustified in confirming the above penalty

ACIT, CIR-22, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MRS SHEELA CHOPRA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07 Acit, Circle-22, 169 V/S. Mrs. Sheela Chopra, A.J.C. Bose Road, 8Th R-604, The Residency, Floor, Kolkata-14 City Centre, Block Dc, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700 064 [Pan No.Abwpc 6131 D] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

gain. Consequently, we allow the appeal, set aside order dated 15.02.1999 and answer the substantial questions of law in favour of the assessee.” 3) Vinod Kumar Jain v. CIT (2010) 195 taxmann 174 (P & H) wherein it was held as under : “Para 2 of Circular No. 471, dt. 15th Oct., 1986 describes the nature of right that an allottee acquires

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

gains indexation benefit on debt instruments Assessee reported loss on conversion of units of UTI MIP 99 which were converted by UTI into tax free bonds prior to the actual date of redemption, after claiming benefit of indexation Tenns "bonds" and "debentures" are not defined in IT Act in case of premature withdrawal, interest already paid is deducted from capital

ITO, WARD - 40(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. SHRI VISHWANATH GUPTA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

capital gain. Neither these evidences were found by the AO nor by the ld. CIT(A) to be false or fictitious or bogus. The facts of the case and the evidence in support of the evidence clearly support the claim of the assessee that the transactions of the assessee were genuine and the authorities below was not justified in rejecting

SRI KANCHAN KAMAL MUKHOPADHYAY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-20(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A Nos. 587 & 588/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Kanchan Kamal Mukhopadhyay -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward-20(2) Kolkata Kolkata. [Pan : Aanpm 2997 B] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Rip Das, Fca For The Respondent : None Date Of Hearing : 10.07.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 14.07.2017. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

capital gain to the total income of the assesee. 3. In respect of the aforesaid addition made in the course of assessment proceedings the AO initiated penalty

SMT. NILANJANA CHAKRABORTI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 22, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Nilanjana Chakraborti…………..………...........…………..……………….…...……..….…….....Appellant 99B, Kankulia Road Kolkata – 700 029 [Pan : Acupc 49992 P] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-22, Kolkata.……......………………..........Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 16Th , 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 9Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 03/08/2017, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14, On The Following Grounds:- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding The Erroneous Determination Of Long Term Capital Gain At Rs.72,50,000/- By Ld. Dcit On Erroneous Belief & Misconception Of Law By Denying The Benefit Claimed U/S 54F Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Of The Appellant. 2. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Adduce Or Alter Any Ground Or Grounds On Or Before The Hearing Of The Appeal.”

Penalty proceeding u/s.271(1)(C) is initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 2.1. On appeal, the ld. First Appellate Authority confirmed the denial of exemption u/s 54F of the Act. 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the assessee earned long term capital gain

THE UNITED PROVINCES SUGAR COMPANY LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 12(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

gains, taxable u/s 45 of the Act and realisation of capital due to improvement of capital asset by way of external realisation of capital due to improvement of capital asset by way of external realisation of capital due to improvement of capital asset by way of external development over a long period of time. r a long period of time

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)

gain has been shown, the A.O. Simply by casting doubt for alleged purchase of house property for Rs.11,00,000/- cannot treat the same as cash credit. Suspicion cannot replace the real evidential documents. Simply by arguing it to be a case of manipulation the Revenue is not supposed to succeed in their contention without proper evidence. Mukesh R. Marolia

SUVAPRASANNA BHATTACHARYA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 55, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07 Suvaprasanna Bhatacharya V/S. Acit, Circle-55, Bh-167, Salt Lake, Sector- 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Ii, Kolkata-700 016 Kidwai Road, [Pan No.Aedpb 2611 R] Kolkata – 700 016 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

capital gains of Rs.10,38,108/- which will be taxed at special rate of 10%. Assessed u/s.143(3) of the I.T.Act, 1961. Issue demand notice. Penalty

SMT. MINU GUPTA ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 44(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Capital Gain on sale of shares of M/s. NCL Research & Financial Services Ltd. and M/s Unno Industries Ltd which action has not been accepted by the Tribunal and therefore prayed that assessee’s claim need to be allowed and drew our attention to the decisions of the Tribunal wherein such claims have been upheld: i) Sri Gaurav Pincha