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)

11 47 Average Holding Period (No. of days) 164 95 177 58 Weighted average holding Period (No. of days) 83 82 131 50 LTCG NIL NIL 518754 4401695 No. of Scrips traded NIL NIL 4 4 3 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd (Since merged with M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr. 2005-06 to 2008-09 Dividend received

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)

11 47 Average Holding Period (No. of days) 164 95 177 58 Weighted average holding Period (No. of days) 83 82 131 50 LTCG NIL NIL 518754 4401695 No. of Scrips traded NIL NIL 4 4 3 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd (Since merged with M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr. 2005-06 to 2008-09 Dividend received

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)

11 47 Average Holding Period (No. of days) 164 95 177 58 Weighted average holding Period (No. of days) 83 82 131 50 LTCG NIL NIL 518754 4401695 No. of Scrips traded NIL NIL 4 4 3 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd (Since merged with M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr. 2005-06 to 2008-09 Dividend received

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)

11 47 Average Holding Period (No. of days) 164 95 177 58 Weighted average holding Period (No. of days) 83 82 131 50 LTCG NIL NIL 518754 4401695 No. of Scrips traded NIL NIL 4 4 3 Ruguvalika Trading Pvt. Ltd (Since merged with M.M. Murarka Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr. 2005-06 to 2008-09 Dividend received

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]

4 months has been maintained by the assessee from the date of purchase. We also find from the workings of long term capital gains for Asst year 2006-07, the shares were held for a period of 13 months. This shows that the assessee always intended these shares to be retained only under the investment category and it will

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]

4 months has been maintained by the assessee from the date of purchase. We also find from the workings of long term capital gains for Asst year 2006-07, the shares were held for a period of 13 months. This shows that the assessee always intended these shares to be retained only under the investment category and it will

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

In the result, Ground r.w

Section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act, has been wrongly invoked by the Assessing Officer. He submitted that the provision can be invoked only when the ing Officer. He submitted that the provision can be invoked only when the ing Officer. He submitted that the provision can be invoked only when the assessee acquires property other than immovable property

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]

4. It may also be mentioned at this stage that the legislature, realizing that there was no specific provision in this behalf in the Income Tax Act, has made amendment in Section 11(6) of the Act vide Finance Act No. 2/2014 which became effective from the Assessment Year 2015-16. The Delhi High Court has taken the view

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]

4. It may also be mentioned at this stage that the legislature, realizing that there was no specific provision in this behalf in the Income Tax Act, has made amendment in Section 11(6) of the Act vide Finance Act No. 2/2014 which became effective from the Assessment Year 2015-16. The Delhi High Court has taken the view

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

4 16,17,57 2,31332838 1,11,33,28,3 t Securities 00 22 8 8 88 The LTCL of Rs.1,11,33,28,388/- was not allowed to the assessee in the assessment order passed. However, the assessee was allowed the claim of set off of Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) of Rs.86,39,024/- from Sale

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

gains to the extent of ₹89,11,086/- as per computation of income submitted, out of which a sum of ₹88,98,508/- was reported to have been against the sale of land. On examination of Schedule 6 of the Audited Balance Sheet as submitted, it was found that there was deduction of gross block of ₹4

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

gains to the extent of ₹89,11,086/- as per computation of income submitted, out of which a sum of ₹88,98,508/- was reported to have been against the sale of land. On examination of Schedule 6 of the Audited Balance Sheet as submitted, it was found that there was deduction of gross block of ₹4

THE INSTITUTE OF INDIAN FOUNDRYMEN,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

4. It may also be mentioned at this stage that the legislature, realizing that there was no specific provision in this behalf in the Income Tax Act, has made amendment in Section 11(6) of the Act vide Finance Act No. 2/2014 which became effective from the Assessment Year 2015-16. The Delhi High Court has taken the view

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

4. It may also be mentioned at this stage that the legislature, realizing that there was no specific provision in this behalf in the Income Tax Act, has made amendment in Section 11(6) of the Act vide Finance Act No. 2/2014 which became effective from the Assessment Year 2015-16. The Delhi High Court has taken the view

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

4,11,00,000/- Fair Market Value ₹9,03,42,619/ (u/s 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act)) Less: Indexed Cost of acquisition Cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 ₹84,71,600 X 1081/100 Rs.9,15,77,996 Long Term Capital Gain ₹12,35,377” 05. Thereafter, the ld. AO mentioned that the case was referred

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]

4. It may also be mentioned at this stage that the legislature, realizing that there was no specific provision in this behalf in the Income Tax Act, has made amendment in Section 11(6) of the Act vide Finance Act No. 2/2014 which became effective from the Assessment Year 2015-16. The Delhi High Court has taken the view

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

11 Shuvro Chattaraj, AY: 2015-16 xx. The order of Ld. PCIT is vague and ambiguous as it failed to assert the decision on taxability of capital Gain, if the taxability is not in this year then there is no question of allow-ability of deductions u/s 54EC and 54F. On alternate argument then there is no question of taxability

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]

4. It may also be mentioned at this stage that the legislature, realizing that there was no specific provision in this behalf in the Income Tax Act, has made amendment in Section 11(6) of the Act vide Finance Act No. 2/2014 which became effective from the Assessment Year 2015-16. The Delhi High Court has taken the view