BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI 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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai352Delhi275Bangalore138Chennai120Kolkata98Agra69Ahmedabad67Jaipur54Chandigarh53Pune42Hyderabad32Visakhapatnam28Indore28Surat27Lucknow23Nagpur18Cochin13Amritsar7Rajkot7Patna5Jodhpur5Allahabad5Cuttack4Raipur3Panaji2Karnataka2Jabalpur1Kerala1Telangana1Varanasi1Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 154127Section 143(3)102Section 234E90Section 143(1)54Section 26350Section 200A48Deduction46Section 25038Section 14A37Rectification u/s 154

AMBO AGRO PRODUCTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE PCIT, KOLKATA-1, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 676/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 May 2017AY 2009-2010

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50Section 50B

rectification order u/s. 154 that too specifically regarding computation of LTCG of the slump sale of Haldia Unit was the only issue which was brought to the knowledge of the AO, who accepted 10 Ambo Agro Products Ltd., AY 2009-10 the mistake which was apparent on the face of record and rectified the same and also the fact

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

Showing 1–20 of 98 · Page 1 of 5

34
Addition to Income29
Disallowance29
ITA 2406/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

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

Section 250

rectification of mistake apparent on record u/s 254(2) of the Act. Thus, the income assessed and computed mistake apparent on record u/s 254(2) of the Act. Thus, the income assessed and computed mistake apparent on record u/s 254(2) of the Act. Thus, the income assessed and computed by the Assessing Officer in the impugned assessment order

SHRI JNANENDRA NATH BANERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-24(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1466/KOL/2014[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2016AY 2005-2006

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

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Khaitan, Sr. Counsel &For Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2Section 50CSection 54Section 54ESection 54F

154 proceedings. 3 Jnanendra Nath Banerjee., AY 2005-06 3.4. The ld AO vide letter dated 6.9.2012 informed the assessee that it was not his intention to launch any investigation into facts or to call for any evidence. It was stated that the assessee had not deposited the unused amount of capital gains in the capital gain account scheme

ACIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ICI INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2355/KOL/2005[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2015AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)

capital gain cannot be computed. While taking this view, he derive support from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.C.Srinivasa Setty 128 ITR 294 relied upon by the him. The ITAT Hyderabad Bench in the case of Coromandel Fertilisers Ltd. 90 ITD 439 (Hyd) (supra) held that it is not possible to determine the cost

ICI INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 850/KOL/2007[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2015AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)

capital gain cannot be computed. While taking this view, he derive support from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.C.Srinivasa Setty 128 ITR 294 relied upon by the him. The ITAT Hyderabad Bench in the case of Coromandel Fertilisers Ltd. 90 ITD 439 (Hyd) (supra) held that it is not possible to determine the cost

DCIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ICI INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1021/KOL/2007[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2015AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)

capital gain cannot be computed. While taking this view, he derive support from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.C.Srinivasa Setty 128 ITR 294 relied upon by the him. The ITAT Hyderabad Bench in the case of Coromandel Fertilisers Ltd. 90 ITD 439 (Hyd) (supra) held that it is not possible to determine the cost

SUNDEEP MUKHERJEE ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 22(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1271/KOL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Nov 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble Vice -] I.T.A. No. 1271/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Sundeep Mukherjee.............................……………………………………………………………....Appellant Commerce House, 8Th Floor, Room 3A, 2, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkat -700 013. [Pan : Afcpm 5140 E] Ito Ward 22(3) Kolkata...................………………………………………………….............Respondent 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, Kolkata – 700 016. Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 15, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 14, 2018 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 6, Kolkata Dated 17.05.2018 Whereby He Upheld The Rectification Order Passed By The Ao U/S 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual Who Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 15.07.2005 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 1,63,230/-. In The Assessment Completed Originally U/S 143(3) Vide An Order Dated 26.12.2007, The Total Income Of The Assessee Was Determined By The Ao At Rs. 10,84,370/- After Making Addition Inter Alia On Account Of Short Term Capital Gain Amounting To Rs. 6,97,716/- & Tax @ 10% Was Calculated On Such Short Term Capital Gain As Per Section 111A Of The Act. Against The Order Passed By The Ao U/S 143(3), An Appeal Was Filed By The Assessee Before The Ld. Cit(A) Who Disposed Of The Same

Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 251

capital gain @ 20% instead of 10% and he, therefore, filed an application u/s 154 seeking rectification of the said mistake

ANANDA PAUL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands are allowed

ITA 165/KOL/2015[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Apr 2018AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2007-08 Ananda Paul V/S. Acit, Circle-50, Cf-125, Salt Lake City, Manicktala Civic Centre, Kolkata-64 Uttarpan Complex, Ds- [Pan No.Afkpp 2201 D] 2&3, Kolkata-54 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri S. Dasagupta, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 12-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 20-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxxii, Kolkata Dated 05.11.2014. Assessment Was Framed By Acit, Circle-50 Kolkata U/S 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 30.12.2011 For Assessment Year 2007-08. Shri, S.K. Tulsiyan, Ld. Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Shri S. Dasgupta, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Revenue. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1) That On The Fats & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Treating The Re-Assessment Proceeding U/S 143(3)/147 Of The It Act, 1961 As Invalid, Bad In Law, Unjust & Contrary To The Facts & Law. 2) That On The Facts & In Respect To The Circumstances Of Thee Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143(3)/147 Of The It Act, 1961 By The Ld. Ao As Proper & Valid Without Considering The

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 19(38)

u/s 154 of the Act was issued dated 20.04.2010 by the AO for the rectification of mistake apparent from the record in the assessment order passed by him under section 143(3) of the Act. The AO alleged that the assessee has claimed exemption on the long term capital gain

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)Section 154Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250Section 54Section 54BSection 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

SMT. KANTA AGARWAL ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 32, , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2119/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 2119/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Kanta Agarwal........................................……………………….......................................Appellant C/O. V.N. Purohit & Co., Chartered Accountants, Diamond Chambers, Unit-Iii, 4Th Floor, Suite No. 4G, 4, Chowringhee Lane, Kolkata – 700 016. [Pan: Aexpa 2210 D] Vs Acit, Circle – 32, Kolkata...................………………………………………………….............Respondent 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata – 700 071. Appearances By: Shri H.V. Bhardwaj, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Sr. Dr, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 26, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 22, 2020 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)

Section 143(1)Section 154

capital gain of Rs. 4,52,596/- for the year under consideration. She, therefore, filed an application u/s 154 seeking rectification

QUADRA MEDICAL SERVICES PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 12(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1896/KOL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Oct 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Dev Kr. Kothari, ACA, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Md. Ghyas Uddin,JCIT, ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 154

rectification, though the notice was very vague and there was no mistake apparent from records rectifiable u/s. 154 2. The appellant pray that the order passed u/s. 154 may be set aside and the order passed u/s. 143(3) may be restored.. 5. The Learned AR argued that there was no computation under the head “capital gains

M/S. KKALPANA PLASTICK LTD.,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 343/KOL/2022[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2022AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.343/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Kkalpana Plastick Ltd.............…............................................……….……Appellant Maruti Building, 5Th Floor, Flat No.5F, 12, Dr. U.N. Brahmachari Street, Kolkata – 700017. Pan: Aadcs8894C] Vs. Ito, Ward-10(3), Kolkata...………...........…............……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 07, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 16, 2022 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.05.2022 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’).

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

capital gains @20% vide order dated 31.07.2009. 5. Thereafter, the appellant filed rectification petition u/s 154 of the Act dated

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

ADITYA VIKRAM ROY CHOWDHURY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 358/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble Vice-(Kz)] [Through Virtual Court] I.T.A. No. 358/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Aditya Vikram Roy Chowdhury..............................................................................................Appellant 15B, Mandeville Gardens, Charuvila, Ballygunge, Kolkata – 700 019. [Pan: Ajwpr 7809 M] Vs Ito, Ward – 1(1), Kolkata..................………………………………………................................Respondent Appearances By: None Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit, Sr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue: Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 11, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 08, 2021 Order

For Respondent: Date of concluding the hearing : November 11, 2021
Section 143(1)Section 154

Capital Gain of the year under consideration was disallowed by the AO vide an order u/s 143(1), two remedies were available to the assessee i.e. to move the application u/s 154 for rectification

DAULAL KOTHARI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-44, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1065/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Mar 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1065/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Daulal Kothari -Vs- Dcit, Circle-44, Kolkata [Pan: Aiypk 2894 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 50C

u/s 154 of the Act was not in accordance with the provision of section 154 of the Act. In response to this, the ld. DR vehemently relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). We find that the provision of section 154(1) and 154(1A) read as under: Section 154 - Rectification of mistake (1) 3 With a view

D.C.I.T CIR - 1,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S THE INDIA JUTE & INDUSTRIES LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 802/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganeshita No. 802/Kol/2013 A.Y 2007-08 D.C.I.T, Circle-1, Kolkata Vs. M/S. The India Jute & Industries Ltd Pan: Aabct1896P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D. Lahiri,JCIT, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri A.K Tibrewal, FCA, ld.AR
Section 143(3)Section 154

rectification proceedings u/s 154 of the Act. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the case laws relied upon by both the counsels. We find that the section 32(2) of the Act pursuant to the amendment in Finance Act 1996 curtailed the benefit of carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation loss to a period of 8 years

MADHABI NAG,BANKURA vs. ACIT, CIR-1, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 512/KOL/2015[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2015AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm] Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri R.N.Ram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amitav Bhattacharjee, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 154

Capital Gain on sales of shares was wrongly offered to tax and that the same was exempted u/s 10(38) of the Act. The assessee prayed that apparent error u/s 10(38) of the Act be rectified. The AO, however, held by this order dated 28.10.2010 passed u/s 154 of the Act that the assessee had not given the relevant

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