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

capital gains with the help of sections 49 and 47 of the Act but did not press the technical aspect of the case and accordingly the appeal which was part- heard was refixed and not treated to be as part-heard. 10

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

section 49(1), the cost of acquisition and period of holding of the donor are considered in the hands of donee. Thus the Ld. PCIT erred on fact that the property is not a long term asset when the same was acquired in 1998. The Ld. PCIT erred on law that the capital gains arising on such long term capital

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

gains under section 48 of the Act. Sub-clause (i) of that Section states that expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of capital asset has to be deducted from full value consideration received or accruing. Preamble of the Conveyance Deed executed by the assessee along with Shri Nita Basu reads as under :— 'THIS INDENTURE made this

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 Gains reduced from cost as per section 54 (1) (ii) 1,10,74,204 Short Term Capital Gain as per AO 4,19,61,865 Ram Niranjan

SAROJ BAID,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 36(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, J & Dr. Manish Borad

capital gain of Rs. 68,87,029/- as bogus and added to the returned income of your appellant as unexplained case credit under section 68 of I T. Act, 1961. (2) Ld Income Tax Officer has erred in law as well as in fact in denying exemption under section 10

SAROJ BAID,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, J & Dr. Manish Borad

capital gain of Rs. 68,87,029/- as bogus and added to the returned income of your appellant as unexplained case credit under section 68 of I T. Act, 1961. (2) Ld Income Tax Officer has erred in law as well as in fact in denying exemption under section 10

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

10 he mentioned that 246 companies are managed and controlled by him. In reply to Question No. 16, it was stated by him that he was providing accommodation entries in the form of long term capital gain to different entities. In reply to Question No. 17, he stated Page 8 of 74 I.T.A. Nos.: 982, 983, 984 & 2068/KOL/2018 Assessment Year

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

10 he mentioned that 246 companies are managed and controlled by him. In reply to Question No. 16, it was stated by him that he was providing accommodation entries in the form of long term capital gain to different entities. In reply to Question No. 17, he stated Page 8 of 74 I.T.A. Nos.: 982, 983, 984 & 2068/KOL/2018 Assessment Year

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

10 he mentioned that 246 companies are managed and controlled by him. In reply to Question No. 16, it was stated by him that he was providing accommodation entries in the form of long term capital gain to different entities. In reply to Question No. 17, he stated Page 8 of 74 I.T.A. Nos.: 982, 983, 984 & 2068/KOL/2018 Assessment Year

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

10 he mentioned that 246 companies are managed and controlled by him. In reply to Question No. 16, it was stated by him that he was providing accommodation entries in the form of long term capital gain to different entities. In reply to Question No. 17, he stated Page 8 of 74 I.T.A. Nos.: 982, 983, 984 & 2068/KOL/2018 Assessment Year

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

section was passed on 27.02.2023, setting aside the order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 08.03.2021 on the following grounds: (a) Treatment of gain from transfer of 34 unquoted preference shares of ICICI Bank Ltd as long-term capital gain (hereafter ‘LTCG’) of Rs. 12,97,56,648/- instead of business profit of Rs. 18,48,26,280/-, ostensibly

SRI GOVINDDEO EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE ,KOLKATA vs. ITO(EXEMPTION) WARD-1(3) , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member), Shri Sanjay Awasthi (Accountant Member)

Section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act are applicable and consequently the income of the institution is exempt from tax. We note that though the assessee trust has total receipt of Rs. 1,09,82,810/- by way of dividend, interest and capital gain

SWETA SONTHALIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

section (1) so as to provide that the investment made by an assessee in the long-term specified asset, out of capital gains arising from transfer of one or more original asset, during the financial year in which the original asset or assets are transferred and in the subsequent financial year does not exceed fifty lakh rupees. This amendment will

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gains\nmade by him for the purpose of purchasing and/or acquiring the aforesaid assets.\nWe find therefore that on this ground also, the assessee is liable to succeed. The\nappeals are, accordingly, allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set\naside.'\n12. In view of the interpretation given to the word \"utilized\" used in section

ZAFAR IQBAL,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

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

section 54F of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 and had claimed before the Hon'ble CIT(A) in writing during the first\nappellate proceedings that his taxable capital gains was for Rs.44,63,518 only.\nSale proceeds of 3.55 Acres of land\nRs.4,17,00,000/-\nLess: Cost of acquisition of 2.81\nAcres of land in the hand

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain derived from sale of shares was\nclaimed exempt u/s 54F of the Act. The AO however denied the\nexemption on three grounds. The first and foremost reason given by\nthe AO is applicability of proviso to Section 54F(1) of the Act. The\nproviso below sub-section (1) of Section 54F lays down certain\ndisqualification for claiming exemption

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. For this reason also, there appears to be no infirmity in the conclusion drawn by the CIT(A). Hence, we decline to interfere”. 8. It is also pertinent to observe that Tribunal made reference to the Amendment carried out in section 48 vide Finance Bill, 2023, which is applicable from A.Y. 2024-25. In this amendment

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

10,000/ in the capital gain account with PNB so as to construct the house. This unequivocally demonstrate that assessee really intended to construct the new residential house thereon. It was based on this bonafide intention assessee had claimed exemption under section