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

capital gains, which was assessable in AY 2015-16. The assessee contends that if the transfer is considered in AY 2013-14 then there is no discussion regarding the taxation of Rs. 90,00,000/- received in AY 2015-16 by the Ld. PCIT. The Ld. PCIT while setting aside the order of the Ld. AO has held in paras

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

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

20 of 74 I.T.A. Nos.: 982, 983, 984 & 2068/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 M/s. Gateway Financial Services Ltd. M/s. Nishit Agarwal Beneficiary Trust Pinky Agarwal Pratik Agarwal Beneficiary Trust dealing with issue of claim of bogus capital gain on penny stock, holding the judgment in favour of Revenue. It is pertinent to mention that the Ld. A/R neither brought

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

20 of 74 I.T.A. Nos.: 982, 983, 984 & 2068/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 M/s. Gateway Financial Services Ltd. M/s. Nishit Agarwal Beneficiary Trust Pinky Agarwal Pratik Agarwal Beneficiary Trust dealing with issue of claim of bogus capital gain on penny stock, holding the judgment in favour of Revenue. It is pertinent to mention that the Ld. A/R neither brought

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

20 of 74 I.T.A. Nos.: 982, 983, 984 & 2068/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 M/s. Gateway Financial Services Ltd. M/s. Nishit Agarwal Beneficiary Trust Pinky Agarwal Pratik Agarwal Beneficiary Trust dealing with issue of claim of bogus capital gain on penny stock, holding the judgment in favour of Revenue. It is pertinent to mention that the Ld. A/R neither brought

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

20 of 74 I.T.A. Nos.: 982, 983, 984 & 2068/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 M/s. Gateway Financial Services Ltd. M/s. Nishit Agarwal Beneficiary Trust Pinky Agarwal Pratik Agarwal Beneficiary Trust dealing with issue of claim of bogus capital gain on penny stock, holding the judgment in favour of Revenue. It is pertinent to mention that the Ld. A/R neither brought

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)

20/-. The entire expenditure of the schools run by assessee were incurred by it and accounted for in its books of accounts. According 4 I.T.A. No. 718/Kol/2024 Sri Govinddeo Educational Institute to the assessee, the geographical area covered by it is a remote and under developed village, therefore, no other activities except for education on which expenditure was incurred were

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

20, 2025\nDate of pronouncing the order : January 12, 2026\nORDER\nPer Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member:\nThis is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the\nNFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)"] dated\n18.08.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred

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

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

20,000/-\nRs. 15,42,500/-\nAmount paid to occupant tenants\nRs. 98,00,000/-\nLawyer's fees and other expenses\nfor all deeds and agreements\nTOTAL\nRs. 10,00,000/-\nRs.3,13,62,500/-\nIn Raghavan Nair vs. ACIT (2018) 402 ITR 400 (Ker HC), it has been held\nthat if the capital gain has been wrongly offered

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

section 48 of the "Act". Therefore, the CIT(A) has rightly accepted the assessee's contention and deleted the addition made by the Assessing officer. Hence, qua this ground, we uphold the order of the CIT(A). 7. Subsequently this judgment and certain other judgments have also been considered by the Hon’ble ITAT, Delhi in ITA No. 6620/DEL/2019, order

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

20. According to section 54 deduction is allowable if assessee purchases the property. In this case by agreement dated 25/07/2009, assessee ‘acquired right to purchase’ a house which was under construction, on 2/2/2011, when house was handed over to the assessee, when it was inhabitable , assessee purchased house. 21. In principal commissioner of income tax &ors. Vs. Akshay sobti

SKYBRIDGE REAL ESTATES LLP,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 34, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Skybridge Real Estates Llp Dcit, Circle -34, 24, Hemant Basu Sarani, Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, 110, Mangalam-A, 5Th Floor, Room Shanti Pally, E.M. Bypass, Vs. No.507, Kolkata-700001, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acvfs7139R Assessee By : Shri N.S. Saini, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Ruchika Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2024

10(38) of the Act, the remaining capital gain of Rs. 4,12,62,661/- was under the head short term capital gain on which tax at the rate of 20% was paid. The ld. AO noted that these equities were held as stock-in-trade after being purchased in F.Y. 2016-17 and not as capital asset. Accordingly

OBEROI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri. Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

10. Finally, the ld.AR invited our attention in assessee’s own case Oberoi Hotels (P) Ltd vs. CIT 236 ITR 903 (SC). The relevant observation is reproduced as below:- “The aforesaid judgment was considered in the case of Kettlewell Bullvn and Co, Ltd. v, CIT 11964) 53 1TR 261 (SC), wherein the court has held as under (page 270) : "Whether

OBEROI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-8, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri. Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

10. Finally, the ld.AR invited our attention in assessee’s own case Oberoi Hotels (P) Ltd vs. CIT 236 ITR 903 (SC). The relevant observation is reproduced as below:- “The aforesaid judgment was considered in the case of Kettlewell Bullvn and Co, Ltd. v, CIT 11964) 53 1TR 261 (SC), wherein the court has held as under (page 270) : "Whether

DCIT, CIR-8, KOLKATA ,KOLKATA vs. OBEROI HOTELS PVT. LTD. , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri. Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

10. Finally, the ld.AR invited our attention in assessee’s own case Oberoi Hotels (P) Ltd vs. CIT 236 ITR 903 (SC). The relevant observation is reproduced as below:- “The aforesaid judgment was considered in the case of Kettlewell Bullvn and Co, Ltd. v, CIT 11964) 53 1TR 261 (SC), wherein the court has held as under (page 270) : "Whether

ORIENTAL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

20,06,27,832/-, the source of fund of the investment also remained unexplained due to paucity of the regular fund, only the corpus fund could explain the source of fund towards investment in mutual fund. It is pertinent to mention here that the corpus fund has been created by accumulation of money claimed as exempt

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7(1) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

10 12. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material placed before us. The issue raised by the revenue relates to deletion of upward adjustment of royalty income by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee entered into a royalty agreement with its AE SFIC, Dubai and has been showing royalty income rate @ 5% of sales value of the products

MANOJ JAIN (HUF),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 35(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

10(38) of the Act for long-term capital gain of Rs.47,25,995/- from sale of equity shares of Sulabh Engineers & Services Limited. The case selected for scrutiny through CASS in AST module by valid serving of notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the ld. Assessing Officer observed