THE INSTITUTE OF INDIAN FOUNDRYMEN,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-1(3), EXEMPT, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

capital gain. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the addition. 29. Issue raised in ground no. 9 is against the order of AO computing the deduction u/s 11(1)(a) @ 15% on the net income and not on the gross receipt of the ICC whereas

THE INSTITUTE OF INDIAN FOUNDRYMEN. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), EXEMPT, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

capital gain. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the addition. 29. Issue raised in ground no. 9 is against the order of AO computing the deduction u/s 11(1)(a) @ 15% on the net income and not on the gross receipt of the ICC whereas

THE INSTITUTE OF INDIAN FOUNDRYMEN ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD- 1(3), EXEMPT, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

capital gain. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the addition. 29. Issue raised in ground no. 9 is against the order of AO computing the deduction u/s 11(1)(a) @ 15% on the net income and not on the gross receipt of the ICC whereas

THE INSTITUTE OF INDIA FOUNDRYMEN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(3),EXEMPT, KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

capital gain. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the addition. 29. Issue raised in ground no. 9 is against the order of AO computing the deduction u/s 11(1)(a) @ 15% on the net income and not on the gross receipt of the ICC whereas

INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-1(1), (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpalyadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

capital gain. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the addition. 29. Issue raised in ground no. 9 is against the order of AO computing the deduction u/s 11(1)(a) @ 15% on the net income and not on the gross receipt of the ICC whereas

INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-1(1), (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpalyadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

capital gain. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the addition. 29. Issue raised in ground no. 9 is against the order of AO computing the deduction u/s 11(1)(a) @ 15% on the net income and not on the gross receipt of the ICC whereas

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 should be made to acquire another capital asset. 4. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Exemption), Kolkata has erred in coming to conclusion that utilization of corpus fund of Rs.8,71,03,846/- towards charitable activities is in contravention of section 11(1

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

11. The AO as per his decision as stated in para 9 above, took the transfer price u/s 50C based on revaluation report at Rs. 90,00,00,000/- and after allowing the indexed cost on RS. 8,50,00,000/- determined the capital gains at Rs. 76,04,62,428/- 12 The Ld CIT(A) held that the transfer

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

11. The AO as per his decision as stated in para 9 above, took the transfer price u/s 50C based on revaluation report at Rs. 90,00,00,000/- and after allowing the indexed cost on RS. 8,50,00,000/- determined the capital gains at Rs. 76,04,62,428/- 12 The Ld CIT(A) held that the transfer

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

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

1)(ii) of the Act at Rs. 4,19,61,685/-. 3.1. The facts in brief are that the assessee, being a sole and exclusive lessee of the premises no. 6, Ballygunge Park Road, Kolkata since 1974 entered into a Development Agreement with ODC Ram Niranjan Banka; A.Y. 2014-15 Engineering and Construction Pvt. Ltd. on 03rd April

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

11,609/-, whereas according to DDIT, rent received was 32,595/- per month. Therefore, the ld. AO added a sum of ₹1,48,308 (₹148,126 + Rs.182) to the total income of the assessee. 06. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) came to the conclusion that the land and building were part of the block of assets

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]

11. In any event, from a reading of Section 54EC(1) and the first proviso, it is clear that the time limit for investment is six months from the date of transfer and even if such investment falls under two financial years, the benefit claimed by the assessee cannot be denied. It would have made a difference, if the restriction

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(1)\nwhich says that \"net consideration\", in relation to the transfer of a capital\nasset, means the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a\nresult of the transfer of the capital asset as reduced by any expenditure\nincurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer.\nIn CIT vs. Miss Piroja C. Patel

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]

1) of the Act, the Hon’ble High Court held that Section 10(27) of the Act excluded term only the income derived from a business of livestock breeding or poultry or dairy farming. The said section did not exclude the business of livestock breeding or poultry or dairy farming out rightly from the operation of the Act and therefore

M/S PREMIER IRRIGATION ADRITEC (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

gains of business or profession’. The interest on late payment of TDS, is not covered either under the provision of sections 30 to 36 of the Act, nor it qualifies as expenditure wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business or profession u/s 37 of the Act. Even u/s 36(1) (iii) of the Act, the amount of interest

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

1,88,317/- was\noffered to tax. The Id. AO noted that the said capital gain was utilized\nby purchase of land amounting to ₹2,80,70,000/- for construction of\nresidential house. The said amounts utilized out of capital gain are as\nunder:-\nSL No.\n1.\n2.\n3.\n4.\nAmount Invested\nPurchased of Land\nArchitect Fees\nDeposit in Capital