BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

34 results for “capital gains”+ Rectification u/s 154clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai161Delhi86Chennai66Bangalore65Chandigarh42Jaipur36Kolkata34Ahmedabad29Pune26Visakhapatnam21Indore19Nagpur18Hyderabad15Lucknow12Surat10Cochin10Agra8Patna5Jodhpur4Rajkot3Amritsar3Cuttack3Raipur2Panaji2Allahabad2Varanasi1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 15432Section 25027Section 143(3)24Section 143(1)24Section 9020Deduction19Addition to Income15Rectification u/s 15414Double Taxation/DTAA14Section 263

ACHHELAL YADAV,DANKUNI vs. ITO, WARD-23(1),HOOGHLY. , HOOGHLY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 844/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 844/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Achhelal Yadav Income Tax Officer, Ward- 23(1), G/4/3, Phase-Ii, Dankuni Housing Vs Hooghly Complex P.O. Dankuni West Bengal - 712331 [Pan: Aakpy3403B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/10/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 17/07/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Ao Passed U/S 154 When In Fact The Entire Sold Lands Were Rural Agriculture Lands & Thus The Said Lands Do Not Come Under The Purview Of The Definition Of Capital Asset As Provided Under Section 2(14)(Iii) & Thus The Entire Calculation Of Capital Gain On Sale Of Rural Agriculture Land Was Illegal, Wrong & Without Any Sanction Of Law. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ao By Invoking The Provision Of Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act Since The Mistake, Which Was Sought To Be Rectified By The Ao, Was Not A Mistake Apparent From The Record As Prescribed Under Section 154. 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, A/RFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(2)

Showing 1–20 of 34 · Page 1 of 2

11
TDS11
Section 139(1)9
Section 154
Section 2(14)
Section 2(14)(iii)
Section 250
Section 54
Section 54B
Section 54F

rectification proceedings u/s 154 of the Act and the contentions of the assessee claiming that the agricultural land sold during the year, do not fall under the category of capital asset u/s 2(14) of the Act and alternatively is also eligible for exemption u/s 54B of the Act at Rs.97,55,000/-, ld. CIT(A) failed to find

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

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

ITA 511/KOL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

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)

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Mathur, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Singh, JCIT (Sr.DR)
Section 143(1)Section 154

capital gains. To rectify this mistake, an application u/s. 154 of the Act was made on 17.09.2012. 3.1. In the petition for rectification

SUVODEEP PYNE,GARIA vs. ITO, WARD 63(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2251/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2251&2252/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Suvodeep Pyne…………………..…..……….………….……….……….……Appellant Castle Apt 3B, 129, Garia Main Road, Kamdahari, Garia S.O, W.B-700084.. [Pan: Bbypp8655C] Vs. Ito, Ward-63(1), Kolkata……………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Pratim Dutta, Adv. & Sanjana Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S B Chakraborthy, Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2020-21 Against Separate Orders Both Dated 09.08.2025 Of The Addl/Jcit(A) Kochi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 – Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In This 2. Case, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Fy-2017-18, Relevant To The A.Y- 2018-19 On 29.08.2018 By Disclosing Gross Total Income Of Rs. 68,85,998/- & Claimed Deduction A Sum Of Ra.7,455/-. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Disclosed Income From Salary Of

Section 111ASection 112Section 154Section 250Section 90

gain u/s 111A sum of Rs.37,29,653/- and attracted tax @15% a sum of Rs.5,59,448/-and long term capital a sum of Rs. 5,71,972/-and attracted tax @ 20% a sum of Rs. 1,14,395/-u/s 112. The assessee claimed the entire salary Income was exempted as per as per DTAA and claimed relief u/s

SUVODEEP PYNE,GARIA vs. ITO, WARD 63(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2252/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2251&2252/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Suvodeep Pyne…………………..…..……….………….……….……….……Appellant Castle Apt 3B, 129, Garia Main Road, Kamdahari, Garia S.O, W.B-700084.. [Pan: Bbypp8655C] Vs. Ito, Ward-63(1), Kolkata……………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Pratim Dutta, Adv. & Sanjana Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S B Chakraborthy, Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2020-21 Against Separate Orders Both Dated 09.08.2025 Of The Addl/Jcit(A) Kochi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 – Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In This 2. Case, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Fy-2017-18, Relevant To The A.Y- 2018-19 On 29.08.2018 By Disclosing Gross Total Income Of Rs. 68,85,998/- & Claimed Deduction A Sum Of Ra.7,455/-. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Disclosed Income From Salary Of

Section 111ASection 112Section 154Section 250Section 90

gain u/s 111A sum of Rs.37,29,653/- and attracted tax @15% a sum of Rs.5,59,448/-and long term capital a sum of Rs. 5,71,972/-and attracted tax @ 20% a sum of Rs. 1,14,395/-u/s 112. The assessee claimed the entire salary Income was exempted as per as per DTAA and claimed relief u/s

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

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

ITA 711/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Rip Das, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Monalisha Pal Mukherjee, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 48(2)Section 54

rectification u/s. 154 of the Act. He thus, directed the Ld. AO to rectify the said mistake by invoking the provisions of section 154 after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. Ld. Sr. DR. pointed the fact that assessee suo moto computed long term capital gain

ATLAS & UNION JUTR PRESS CO.LTD,KOLKATA vs. ASSIT. DIT,CPC, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 293/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 54E

rectification order passed u/s 154 of the Act order dated 09.09.2020. Therefore, all the issues are clubbed together and adjudicated the same. 6. The main grievance of the assessee here in the appeal is that assessee sold an immovable property 1A K.P. Sinha Street, Kolkata- 700002 on 24.09.2018 for a value of Rs. 50,00,000/- as per sale deed

UNIVERSAL TRADING COMPANY LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 223/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 115JSection 154Section 237Section 244ASection 250

rectification u/s 154 of the Act, the refund was allowed while in AY 2016-17 the Ld. CIT(A) had granted relief to the assessee on the same issue. I.T.A. No.: 223/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Universal Trading Company Limited. 8. We have considered the submissions made. As regards Ground no. 1, since the credit for tax paid against

BIJNI DOOARS TEA COMPANY LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, KOL-2, KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 409/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Bijni Dooars Tea Company Principal Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kolkata-2, 4Th Floor, Room No. 1, Kolkata. Vs. Shantiniketan, 8, Camac Street, Kolkata-700017. (Pan: Aabcb1013E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Mita Rizvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Datta, CIT, DR
Section 115PSection 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

154 can be done suo motto either by Assessing Officer himself or by the assessee on application. In the instant case, all the documents and details related to the impugned transaction were on record. We need to understand if such a mistake can lead to holding the order erroneous for the purpose of assuming jurisdiction u/s. 263 to invoke revisionary

NEETU AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 7(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 67/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Puja Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Abhishek Kumar, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 250Section 90

154 of the Act were passed on 11.07.2022 and 05.08.2022 but the credit for the claim of foreign taxes was not allowed. Similar issue also came up for consideration before the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ramakrishna Rao Chintalapudi Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Alipurduar in ITA No. 541/KOL/2024, Assessment Year: 2020-21, order

BIDYUT PRAKAS BHATTACHARYA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 52(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 2016/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 90

154 of the Act filed was rejected. After analysis of the computation sheet, it was noted that the income from capital gains shown at Rs. 68,28,041/- was not correct which as per the final revised return at pages 22 to 27 of the paper book was shown at Rs. ‘NIL’ on account of short term capital gains earned

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 461/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 461/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Britannia Industries Ltd. Dy. Cit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata 5/1A, Hungerford Street Vs Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata - 700017 [Pan: Aabcb2066P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kush Kanodia, A/R Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/10/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 24/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Appellant Had Suo Moto Computed & Disallowed Sum Of Rs.14,10,610/- Which Inter Alia Included Sum Of Rs.14,19,009/- Computed In Terms Of Rule 8D(2)(Ii) Being 1% Of The Value Of Tax Free Investments & Therefore The Ao Had Factually Erred In Holding That The Aforesaid Voluntary Disallowance Represented Disallowance Offered By Way Of Direct Expenditure U/S 14A Read With Rule 8D(2)(I) & Thereby Wrongly Computed Further Disallowance Of Rs.13,32,000/- In Terms Of Rule 8D(2)(Ii).

For Appellant: Shri Kush Kanodia, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, CIT, D/R
Section 115Section 14ASection 250Section 35Section 45Section 80G

capital gain in terms of Section 45(2A) of the Act. This ground is therefore allowed for statistical purposes. 14. Now we take up Ground Nos. 7 & 8 of the appeal, which are against the Ld. CIT(A)’s action confirming the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80G of the Act. The facts of the case as noted

LALIT KUMAR PODDAR,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 33,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2170/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

rectification u/s 154 of the act against the said order, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) stating all the grounds but the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the application given its finding that there is a delay of 1239 days as the order passed by the AO on 15.12.2019. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the present appeal has been

ANINDYA SARKAR,KOLKATA vs. A.D.I.T., CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALRU

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1345/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jul 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Roy, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Subhro Das, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 90

rectification order u/s. 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) by the Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru, dated 07.06.2022. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: “1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in disallowing the foreign tax credit due to delay in submission

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

ITA 1899/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92B

rectification order passed u/s 154 of the Act and therefore these grounds are dismissed as not pressed. 19. As regards ground no. 7 for AY 2012-13 regarding charging of interest u/s 234C of the Act, it is stated by ld. Counsel for the assessee that the interest u/s 234C of the Act was computed

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

ITA 1854/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92B

rectification order passed u/s 154 of the Act and therefore these grounds are dismissed as not pressed. 19. As regards ground no. 7 for AY 2012-13 regarding charging of interest u/s 234C of the Act, it is stated by ld. Counsel for the assessee that the interest u/s 234C of the Act was computed

M/S. BHARTIYA HOTELS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 544/KOL/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Mar 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

rectification by DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru u/s. 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”),dated 14.05.2019. 2. Grounds taken by the assessee are reproduced as under: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal is without considering the factual submissions

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 462/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35(1)(i)Section 43BSection 56(2)(x)Section 80J

154 or 147 of the Act. In the present day working, even an AO is working with inputs in the form of Assessee Information System(AIS) or inputs from other external agencies. That does not mean that he is passing an order without application of mind. Now tax computations are made on systems, but does that mean that

NEETU AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1898/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.1898/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Neetu Agarwal………………………………………………………….…..……Appellant Flat 6C, Block 2, Shree Ramnagar Residential Complex, Vip Road, Tegharia, W.B – 700052. [Pan: Actpa2426P] Vs. Ito, Kolkata……………..............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Puja Agarwal, A.R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pradip Biswas, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 18, 2024 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 11.07.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee Is A Resident Individual, Who Filed Her Return Of Income On 29.12.2021 For The Financial Year 2020-21 Relevant To Assessment Year 2021-22 Reporting A Total Income Of Rs.25,58,440/-. The Assessee Discharged Her Tax Liability By Way Of Tax Deducted At Source Amounting To Rs.2,80,028/-, Self-Assessment Tax Of Rs.22,740/- & Foreign Tax Credit (‘Ftc’) Of Rs.2,25,936/-. The Assessee Also Filed Form.67 Which Was Filed On 25.01.2022. An Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Act Was Issued On 28.10.2022 In Which The Ftc Was Not Provided To The Assessee. This Disallowance Resulted In Tax Demand Of Rs.2,79,130/-.

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 90

154 of the Act were passed on 11.07.2022 and 05.08.2022 but the credit for the claim of foreign taxes was not allowed. Similar issue also came up for consideration before the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ramakrishna Rao Chintalapudi Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Alipurduar in ITA No. 541/KOL/2024, Assessment Year: 2020-21, order

RUKMANI BIRLA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.(EXEMPTION), WARD-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 456/KOL/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jul 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 10Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

154 of the Act dated 11.9.2020 and also filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority simultaneously. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by justifying the taxing of dividend income in excess of 10 lakhs u/s 115BBDA of the Act as the earning of divided income is not a activity undertaken for running the educational

VIVEK TIWARI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3, SURI, SURI

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

ITA 163/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

154 of the Act filed was rejected. After analysis of the computation sheet, it was noted that the income from capital gains shown at Rs. 68,28,041/- was not correct which as per the final revised return at pages 22 to 27 of the paper book was shown at Rs. ‘NIL’ on account of short term capital gains earned