RITA GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR.2(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

gain from sale of capital asset . The Ld. A.R vehemently submitted that the capital asset as defined in section 2(14) of the Act includes inter alia shares and securities. The ld. Counsel for the assessee drew attention of the Bench to the provisions of Section 10

RAGUVALIKA TRADING PVT LTD ( SINCE MERGED WITH M.M.MURARKA SHARE & SECURITIES PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) that the Assessing Officer had accepted the claim of short-term capital gains and long-term capital gains of the assessee. Hence the principles of consistency should be followed in the instant case. Though the principle of res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings, the principle of consistency cannot be given ago by. [Para

RAGUVALIKA TRADING PVT LTD ( SINCE MERGED WITH M.M.MURARKA SHARE & SECURITIES PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) that the Assessing Officer had accepted the claim of short-term capital gains and long-term capital gains of the assessee. Hence the principles of consistency should be followed in the instant case. Though the principle of res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings, the principle of consistency cannot be given ago by. [Para

RAGUVALIKA TRADING PVT LTD ( SINCE MERGED WITH M.M.MURARKA SHARE & SECURITIES PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) that the Assessing Officer had accepted the claim of short-term capital gains and long-term capital gains of the assessee. Hence the principles of consistency should be followed in the instant case. Though the principle of res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings, the principle of consistency cannot be given ago by. [Para

RAGUVALIKA TRADING PVT LTD ( SINCE MERGED WITH M.M.MURARKA SHARE & SECURITIES PVT LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 848 To 850/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata (Since Merged With M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 5743 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) that the Assessing Officer had accepted the claim of short-term capital gains and long-term capital gains of the assessee. Hence the principles of consistency should be followed in the instant case. Though the principle of res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings, the principle of consistency cannot be given ago by. [Para

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. VEDA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

capital gains. Accordingly the ground raised by the revenue in this regard for the Asst Years 2006-07 and 2007-08 is dismissed. 6. ADDITION TOWARDS UNVERIFIED PURCHASES – Rs. 55,50,937/- GROUND NO. 2 IN ITA NO. 1064/Kol/2010 FOR AY 2006-07 The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee made purchases from the following parties :- Mayur

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. VEDA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

capital gains. Accordingly the ground raised by the revenue in this regard for the Asst Years 2006-07 and 2007-08 is dismissed. 6. ADDITION TOWARDS UNVERIFIED PURCHASES – Rs. 55,50,937/- GROUND NO. 2 IN ITA NO. 1064/Kol/2010 FOR AY 2006-07 The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee made purchases from the following parties :- Mayur

RAVI JALAN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, Ground r.w

10/- per share declared by the assessee. He also mentions, without per share declared by the assessee. He also mentions, without per share declared by the assessee. He also mentions, without giving any reason that, the short term capital gain is also assessable under the head the short term capital gain is also assessable under the head the short term

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA vs. SMT. SHIKHA ROY, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur CIT vs. D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P) Ltd. [2005] 142 Taxman 713 (SC) [2005] 142 Taxman 713 (SC), held as follows:- “Section 45 of the Income of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains

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

Section 45(2) of Income Tax Act deals with the cases where a capital asset is converted into stock in trade. Whenever a capital asset is converted into stock in trade by an assessee it is deemed as transfer of capital asset and attracts capital gain provisions, in spite of the fact that the ownership of such capital asset doesn

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

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

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

ACIT, CIRCLE - 31, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PRADYUMNA DALMIA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

10(38) of the Act. On first appeal, the Learned CIT(A) appreciated the contentions and accepted the claim of short term capital gains of the assessee. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us on the following grounds:- 1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in both law and fact in treating the income of Rs. 57,27,722/- as Short

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

YAMINI KHANDEL WAL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of both the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Yamini Khandelwal Asst. Commissioner Of Income 5, Amratolla Street Vs Tax, Circle-36, Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 Pan: Afupk6167K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

capital gains, exempted under section 10(38) of the Act. He thus concluded, by holding the gains of Rs.2,61,79,028/- as business

DCIT, CIR-36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SURAJ KHANDEL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of both the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Yamini Khandelwal Asst. Commissioner Of Income 5, Amratolla Street Vs Tax, Circle-36, Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 Pan: Afupk6167K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

capital gains, exempted under section 10(38) of the Act. He thus concluded, by holding the gains of Rs.2,61,79,028/- as business

DCIT, CIR-36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SMT YAMINI KHANDELWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of both the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Yamini Khandelwal Asst. Commissioner Of Income 5, Amratolla Street Vs Tax, Circle-36, Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 Pan: Afupk6167K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

capital gains, exempted under section 10(38) of the Act. He thus concluded, by holding the gains of Rs.2,61,79,028/- as business

SURAJ KHANDELWAL,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RG-36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of both the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Yamini Khandelwal Asst. Commissioner Of Income 5, Amratolla Street Vs Tax, Circle-36, Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 Pan: Afupk6167K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

capital gains, exempted under section 10(38) of the Act. He thus concluded, by holding the gains of Rs.2,61,79,028/- as business