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

26,906) & indexed cost of land 60,22,089 not considered (15,95,183) Long term Capital gain on transfer of land proportionate to Developer’s allocation 4,65,63,334 5,42,02,854 3.3. As regards computation of capital gains on transfer of 1st Floor flat in pursuance of Agreement for sale dated 24th February, 2012 (i.e before

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

10(38) of the Act for long-term capital gain of Rs.69,42,776/- from sale of equity shares of NCL Research and Financial 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

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

10(38) of the Act for long-term capital gain of Rs.69,42,776/- from sale of equity shares of NCL Research and Financial 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

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

section 11B r/w/11(4) of SEBI Act. However investigation has found adverse findings against Radford which warrants Adjudication proceedings". 5.1 The name of the assessee appears at item 77 of the list. Further it was held in Para 10 as under: "10 Considering the fact that there are no adverse findings against the aforementioned 82 entities with respect to their

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

section 11B r/w/11(4) of SEBI Act. However investigation has found adverse findings against Radford which warrants Adjudication proceedings". 5.1 The name of the assessee appears at item 77 of the list. Further it was held in Para 10 as under: "10 Considering the fact that there are no adverse findings against the aforementioned 82 entities with respect to their

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

section 11B r/w/11(4) of SEBI Act. However investigation has found adverse findings against Radford which warrants Adjudication proceedings". 5.1 The name of the assessee appears at item 77 of the list. Further it was held in Para 10 as under: "10 Considering the fact that there are no adverse findings against the aforementioned 82 entities with respect to their

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

section 11B r/w/11(4) of SEBI Act. However investigation has found adverse findings against Radford which warrants Adjudication proceedings". 5.1 The name of the assessee appears at item 77 of the list. Further it was held in Para 10 as under: "10 Considering the fact that there are no adverse findings against the aforementioned 82 entities with respect to their

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

26,280/- from Profit on sale of long term investment to be considered separate income under the head capital gain. This amount was shown as LTCG in the Capital Gain schedule, wherein you have claimed amount of Rs 337797480/- as Full Value of consideration received from sale of asset. The capital gain of Rs 12,97,56,648/- arose which

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

10 cotthas 11 chattak\n38 Sq feet situated at 13 B.T. Road owned by Sint. Saroj Goenka (PAN:ADXPG1677K) (5 Cotthas 4\nChattak 29 sq ft) and Smt. Santosh Goenka (PAN: ADXPG9550F) (5 cotthas 7 Chattak 9 sq\nft) (hereinafter referred to as the owners] and which has been taken on rent by the Diwakar Viniyog Pvt\nLtd from

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

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

26,999/- as long term capital gain which has been claimed as exempt u/s 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

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

26. Hence, we hold that assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 54 of the act on purchase of new property considering the date of possession , when it is completed, as the date of purchase of property as agreement to purchase the Mayura Mohta; A.Y. 2017-18 property was for under construction property. By entering into an Agreement to purchase assessee

NAMOKAR BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am]

10,234/- through their seller- broker M/s. Gateway Financial Services Pvt. Ltd resulting in facilitation of pre-arranged accommodation entry of LTCG to them. This evidence was utilised by the Assessing Officer in treating their Long Term Capital Gains from transaction in shares of Radford Global Ltd as bogus and making addition u/s 68 of the Act. 22. Regarding

SRI GOVINDDEO EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE,KOLKATA vs. DY.DIT(E)-1, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12 Sri Govinddeo Educational Ddit, Exemption Circle-1, Institute Kolkata Vs. 78, Syed Amir Ali Avenue, Ballygunge, Kolkata-700019. (Pan: Aabts6053J) (Appellant) (Respondent)

26,864/- c. Surplus on investment Rs.39,63,524/- Total Rs.94,68,238/- Expenses claimed are as under: a. Donation Rs.1,00,00,000/- b. Expenses for running school Rs. 6,98,016/- c. Service Charges Rs. 66,908/- d. Misc. Expenses Rs. 4,404/- e. Auditor Remuneration Rs. 6,618/- Total Rs.1,07,75,946/- 3.1. Assessee claimed that

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

gains etc. while the income of the trust is to be computed as per the normal commercial principles by considering the receipt and expenditure for the relevant period. It is also stated that out of total receipts received in the relevant year at Rs.68,41,927/-, only Rs. 80,000/- was on account of donations received and a substantial

GILT COMMODITIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-3(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

10,234/- through their sellerbroker M/s. Gateway Financial Services Pvt. Ltd resulting in facilitation of pre-arranged accommodation entry of LTCG to them. This evidence was utilised by the Assessing Officer in treating their Long Term Capital Gains from transaction in shares of Radford Global Ltd as bogus and making addition u/s 68 of the Act. 22. Regarding the report

GUJARAT COMPOSITE LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2007-08

26,60,680/- was based on Approved Valuer's Report which was submitted before the A.O. during the course of assessment proceedings. The A.O. while computing the LTCG on sale of land to Shri Ram Truth House Management Pvt. Ltd had straight way deducted the figure of Rs.3,51,51,080/- being the amount of Deductions as appearing under

NALANDA BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 763/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Nalanda Builders Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata 5, Sree Charan Sarani Vs Bally Howrah – 711201 (West Bengal) [Pan : Aabcn7736Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present 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. 23/11/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Issues Raised In Ground Nos. 2 To 4 Is Against The Confirmation Of Addition As Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Difference Between The Value Taken By The Assessee & The Fair Market Value (Fmv) U/S 50C Of The Act. 3. The Facts In Brief Are That During The Year, The Assessee Sold Two Flats For An Aggregate Consideration Of Rs.3,00,00,000/- & Accordingly Addition Of Rs.3,26,37,314/- Was Made To The Income Of The Assessee. In 2

10,234/- through their seller-broker M/s. Gateway Financial Services Pvt. Ltd resulting in facilitation of pre-arranged accommodation entry of LTCG to them. This evidence was utilised by the Assessing Officer in treating their Long Term Capital Gains from transaction in shares of Radford Global Ltd as bogus and making addition u/s 68 of the Act. 22. Regarding