ANKIT GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 263 of the Act is illegal. (b) that the case that the case of the assessee for this Assessment Year of the assessee for this Assessment Year was selected for scrutiny through CASS for the reason that scrutiny through CASS for the reason that “suspicious long term capital gain on suspicious long term capital gain on shares” based

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

263:- “6. I have considered the facts of the case and submissions of the assessee. These observations were raised in the show cause notice, which is discussed hereunder:- (i) Long term capital gain(without STT):- The assessee claimed long term capital loss (without STT) of Rs.109,80,30,873/-on account of loss suffered from government securities(Rs.111

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

revised on 20.1.2009. (page 157-159). The respondent was entitled to Rs.500/- per sq ft of the actual sale made by the developer in the year. The respondent got the property again revalued by the registered valuer on 6.8.2011 who valued the property at Rs. 90,00,00,000/- (vide paper book page 160-166). The effect to the said

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

revised on 20.1.2009. (page 157-159). The respondent was entitled to Rs.500/- per sq ft of the actual sale made by the developer in the year. The respondent got the property again revalued by the registered valuer on 6.8.2011 who valued the property at Rs. 90,00,00,000/- (vide paper book page 160-166). The effect to the said

SATISH KUMAR LAKHMANI,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

Capital Gains (hereinafter ‘LTCG’) (with STT) and had claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act. These assessees had entered into share transactions through M/s. JRK Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd. The AO passed an order u/s 143(3) of the Act in all these cases and accepted the claim of the assessees for exemption u/s

RACHIT LAKHMANI ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Capital Gains (hereinafter ‘LTCG’) (with STT) and had claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act. These assessees had entered into share transactions through M/s. JRK Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd. The AO passed an order u/s 143(3) of the Act in all these cases and accepted the claim of the assessees for exemption u/s 10(38) of 3 I.T.A

JAIKISHAN LAKHMANI ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10 , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Capital Gains (hereinafter ‘LTCG’) (with STT) and had claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act. These assessees had entered into share transactions through M/s. JRK Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd. The AO passed an order u/s 143(3) of the Act in all these cases and accepted the claim of the assessees for exemption u/s 10(38) of 3 I.T.A

GOPICHAND LAKHMANI ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Capital Gains (hereinafter ‘LTCG’) (with STT) and had claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act. These assessees had entered into share transactions through M/s. JRK Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd. The AO passed an order u/s 143(3) of the Act in all these cases and accepted the claim of the assessees for exemption u/s 10(38) of 3 I.T.A

PRAVESH KUMAR LAKHMANI ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10 , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Capital Gains (hereinafter ‘LTCG’) (with STT) and had claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act. These assessees had entered into share transactions through M/s. JRK Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd. The AO passed an order u/s 143(3) of the Act in all these cases and accepted the claim of the assessees for exemption u/s 10(38) of 3 I.T.A

RAVISH LAKHMANI ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10 , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Capital Gains (hereinafter ‘LTCG’) (with STT) and had claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act. These assessees had entered into share transactions through M/s. JRK Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd. The AO passed an order u/s 143(3) of the Act in all these cases and accepted the claim of the assessees for exemption u/s 10(38) of 3 I.T.A

REETA LAKHMANI,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10 , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Capital Gains (hereinafter ‘LTCG’) (with STT) and had claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act. These assessees had entered into share transactions through M/s. JRK Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd. The AO passed an order u/s 143(3) of the Act in all these cases and accepted the claim of the assessees for exemption u/s 10(38) of 3 I.T.A

RITIN LAKHMANI,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10 , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Capital Gains (hereinafter ‘LTCG’) (with STT) and had claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act. These assessees had entered into share transactions through M/s. JRK Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd. The AO passed an order u/s 143(3) of the Act in all these cases and accepted the claim of the assessees for exemption u/s 10(38) of 3 I.T.A

ALOKE RAY,KOLKATA vs. ACIT(INTT.TAXATION), CIR.-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gains by adopting the valuation conducted by the DVO in respect of another assessee. 4. It is respectfully submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case interference u/s 263 is uncalled for due to the following reasons: a. Jurisdiction u/s 263 can be assumed only if the twin conditions of the order of assessment being erroneous

HILL QUEEN INVESTMENT PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Hill Queen Investment (P) Ltd...……………………....................................……………..…….............Appellant Surobala Apartments Flat No. 202 3Rd Floor Block-B Rekhjuani, Bhatinda Rajarhat Kolkata – 700 135 [Pan : Aaacj 2324 P] Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Kolkata..................…………...............................…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Devi Sharan Singh, Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 6Th, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 21St, 2021 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 2, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 20/03/2020, For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. There Is A Delay Of 223 (Two Hundred Twenty Three) Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee. After Perusing The Petition For Condonation For Delay, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause In Filing The Appeal In Time. Hence, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal. 3. The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.20,40,470/- On 28/09/2015. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny For The Following Reasons:- “(I) Mismatch In Sales Turnover Reported In Audit Report & Itr (Ii) Mismatch In Amount Paid To Related Persons U/S 40A(2)(B) Reported In Audit Report & Itr (Iii) Suspicious Sale Transaction In Shares (Penny Stock Tab In Its)”

revise the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, passed on 29/1 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, passed on 29/12/2017 by invoking his powers u/s 263 of 2/2017 by invoking his powers u/s 263 of the Act. The showcause notice is at page 2 & 3 of the assessment order. The assessee the Act. The showcause notice

INFINITY INFOTECH,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

capital gain and expenditure on account of commission and brokerage. (b) in respect of other items the show cause notice u/s 263 of the Act did not contain the allegation that there was failure on the part of the AO to make and proper enquiries before completing the assessment but the order has been passed on that ground holding that

AMRITRASHI INFRA(P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.C.I.T.-4, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2012-13 Amritrashi Infra Private Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax- (Pan: Aakca2544E) 4, Kolkata.

revise the re-assessment/second assessment order of the second AO dated 07-12-2016. After hearing the assessee, the second Ld. Pr. CIT has set aside the said re-assessment/second assessment order of the AO dated 07-12-2016, wherein the Second Ld. Pr. CIT, Kolkata-4, Kolkata vide order dated 14-03-2019 directed

SPML INFRA LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT-1 , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Manish Borad)

capital gain taking land and building together is not correct and since the ld. AO has not examined this aspect, the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Page 6 of 17 I.T.A. No.: 510/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 SPML Infra Limited. 8. We find that the provision of Section 263

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

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

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

revision order of Ld. Pr.CIT- Kol-3, Kolkata dated 25.02.2015 for AY 2009-10. 2. The main grievance of the assessee is against the action of Ld. Pr. CIT in exercising his jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return