TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

capital gain on land whereas the sale consideration of building was reduced from block of assets in accordance with the provisions of Section 43(6)(c). The same is evident from Clause 18 of tax audit report and Schedule DOA of the ITR for the relevant assessment year, forming part of the paper book (Refer

SPLENDOUR VILLA MAKERS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-12(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 734/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Splendour Villa Makers Pvt. Ltd.,……………Appellant Flat-4D, Lansdown Heights, 6, Sarat Bose Road, Bhowanipur, Kolkata-700020 [Pan:Aahcs9726M] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,..…Respondent Circle-12(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri B.K. Singh, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 05, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 25, 2024 O R D E R

112 of the Act, which is part of the Income Tax Act deals with the calculation of long-term capital gain and capital asset held for more than three years and the assessee is eligible for indexed cost benefit even if it is subjected to section

NIKUNJ DHANUKA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 32, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

Section 147 of the Act specifically deals with the case where assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act has already been carried out and it provides that no action shall be taken in the case after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such Assessment

ARATI RAY,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR. -3(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 778/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Arati Ray,………………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Adopr8465R] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 779/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Mallika Roy,…………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Acgpr7888F] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 780/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 1

112/-. On the analogy of discussion made in the case of Arati Ray, he recorded that as per section 50C of the Income Tax Act, the full sale value ought to be considered equivalent to the amount on which stamp duty was paid by the vendee. Thus, in his opinion, the assessee has undervalued the long-term capital gain

MALIKA ROY,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR. 3(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 778/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Arati Ray,………………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Adopr8465R] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 779/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Mallika Roy,…………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Acgpr7888F] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 780/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 1

112/-. On the analogy of discussion made in the case of Arati Ray, he recorded that as per section 50C of the Income Tax Act, the full sale value ought to be considered equivalent to the amount on which stamp duty was paid by the vendee. Thus, in his opinion, the assessee has undervalued the long-term capital gain

SAMIT RAY,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR. 3(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 778/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Arati Ray,………………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Adopr8465R] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 779/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Mallika Roy,…………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Acgpr7888F] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 780/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 1

112/-. On the analogy of discussion made in the case of Arati Ray, he recorded that as per section 50C of the Income Tax Act, the full sale value ought to be considered equivalent to the amount on which stamp duty was paid by the vendee. Thus, in his opinion, the assessee has undervalued the long-term capital gain

PRADYUMNA DALMIA BENEFICIARY TRUST,KOLKATA vs. ADIT(CPC)/I.T.O., WARD - 33(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

112 or section 112A of the Income tax Act, shall be increased by a surcharge for the purposes of the Union, calculated, in the case of every individual or Hindu undivided family or association of persons or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, or every artificial juridical person referred to in sub-clause (vii) of clause (31) of section

SHRI BUDHRAJ AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-43(6) , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the legal issue as well as on merit

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

Capital Gain were raised in course of the assessment proceedings against which the appellant filed evidences in support of the transactions as well as the genuineness of the company (which is a profit making dividend paying company) and report of analyst in support of rise in prices of the shares. 5. For that the Ld. Pr. CIT erred in setting

SITARAM BHARTIA INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE & RESEARCH,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.(EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Capital Gain on sale of assets at Rs.l0,08,645/- as against Rs.4,14,577/- claimed. 5. That in view of the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) grossly erred in not understanding the fact that even otherwise the entire income of the Appellant is exempt under

JYOTI JHA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT (IT), CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 225/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jyoti Jha Acit(It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata Kalani & Co. Chartered Accountants Vs 5Th Floor, Milestone Building Gandhinagar Turn Tonk Road Jaipur - 302015 [Pan : Aezpj7440J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal, Fca Revenue By : Shri Sunil Kr. Agarwala, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/08/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/10/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel – 2, New Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Drp”) Dt. 05/12/2022, Passed U/S 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. The Ld. Ao Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Assessing The Income Under The Head Capital Gain At Rs.41,46,0917- As Against Nil Income Declared By The Assessee On The Basis Of Direction Of Drp Ignoring That The Amount Of Capital Gain Has Been Invested In Purchase Of Flat Before The Time Available For Filing The Return U/S 139 & Thus Eligible For Deduction U/S 54 Of The Act Even If The Sale Deed Was Executed Subsequently. He Has Further Erred In Observing That Assessee Has Failed To Produce Documentary Evidence In Support Of Claim Ignoring That The Same Was Filed Before The Drp. 2. The Ld. Ao Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Making Addition Of Rs. 7,41,700/- In Respect Of Cash Deposit In The Bank Account U/S 68 Of The Act As Per The Direction Of Drp. He Has Further Erred In Holding That Assessee Failed To Produce Documentary Evidence In Support Of Averments In The Affidavit.

capital gain from sale 4 I.T.A. No. 225/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jyoti Jha of flat. This deduction has been claimed towards purchase of a flat at Gurgaon. The conveyance deed for the said flat has been executed on 06/03/2018 which is after two years from the sale of the property. Revenue authorities have denied the claim taking basis

NAVANSH VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 10(38) of the Act? ( Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed substantial error in law in b deleting the addition of undisclosed income ignoring the larger scam of ) organized tax evasion by way of bogus capital gain generated in penny stock? ( Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed substantial error in law in c taken only one lead case

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

capital asset to a Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) and for that purpose, the procedure prescribed under he Wealth Tax Act are to be applied. In case of any such claim, the AO may rely on the report of the registered valuer under Section 55-A of the Act and in such case it will not be necessary

SUVODEEP PYNE,GARIA vs. ITO, WARD 63(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2251&2252/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Suvodeep Pyne…………………..…..……….………….……….……….……Appellant Castle Apt 3B, 129, Garia Main Road, Kamdahari, Garia S.O, W.B-700084.. [Pan: Bbypp8655C] Vs. Ito, Ward-63(1), Kolkata……………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Pratim Dutta, Adv. & Sanjana Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S B Chakraborthy, Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2020-21 Against Separate Orders Both Dated 09.08.2025 Of The Addl/Jcit(A) Kochi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 – Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In This 2. Case, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Fy-2017-18, Relevant To The A.Y- 2018-19 On 29.08.2018 By Disclosing Gross Total Income Of Rs. 68,85,998/- & Claimed Deduction A Sum Of Ra.7,455/-. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Disclosed Income From Salary Of

gain u/s 111A sum of Rs.37,29,653/- and attracted tax @15% a sum of Rs.5,59,448/-and long term capital a sum of Rs. 5,71,972/-and attracted tax @ 20% a sum of Rs. 1,14,395/-u/s 112. The assessee claimed the entire salary Income was exempted as per as per DTAA and claimed relief

SUVODEEP PYNE,GARIA vs. ITO, WARD 63(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2251&2252/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Suvodeep Pyne…………………..…..……….………….……….……….……Appellant Castle Apt 3B, 129, Garia Main Road, Kamdahari, Garia S.O, W.B-700084.. [Pan: Bbypp8655C] Vs. Ito, Ward-63(1), Kolkata……………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Pratim Dutta, Adv. & Sanjana Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S B Chakraborthy, Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2020-21 Against Separate Orders Both Dated 09.08.2025 Of The Addl/Jcit(A) Kochi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 – Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In This 2. Case, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Fy-2017-18, Relevant To The A.Y- 2018-19 On 29.08.2018 By Disclosing Gross Total Income Of Rs. 68,85,998/- & Claimed Deduction A Sum Of Ra.7,455/-. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Disclosed Income From Salary Of

gain u/s 111A sum of Rs.37,29,653/- and attracted tax @15% a sum of Rs.5,59,448/-and long term capital a sum of Rs. 5,71,972/-and attracted tax @ 20% a sum of Rs. 1,14,395/-u/s 112. The assessee claimed the entire salary Income was exempted as per as per DTAA and claimed relief

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

gain, etc. Accordingly, the assessee was called upon to furnish the details which were furnished by the assessee by submitting that the ITA Nos.1728 & 1729/KOL/2024 Dollar Holding Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 15-16 and 17-18 amalgamating company as on the date of merger had investments amounting to ₹93,01,00,000/- which was acquired by the assessee company pursuant

DEPUTY COMMISSOENR OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

gain, etc. Accordingly, the assessee was called upon to furnish the details which were furnished by the assessee by submitting that the ITA Nos.1728 & 1729/KOL/2024 Dollar Holding Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 15-16 and 17-18 amalgamating company as on the date of merger had investments amounting to ₹93,01,00,000/- which was acquired by the assessee company pursuant

RENU BOTHRA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 46,, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

112, Krishna Kunj Apartment, 2nd Floor, Salkia School Road, Kolkata, West Bengal-741106 PAN No. :BORPB 8384 N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Anil Kochar, AR राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Smt. Sima Das Biswas, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 14/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 14/01/2026 आदेश

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BRGD SPONGE & IRON PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal\nof the assessee is allowed

112 ITD 179 (Ahd.) wherein it has been held that even in the\nabsence of proof of coercion or pressure, the statement by itself cannot be\ntaken as conclusive. Therefore, merely in the absence of proof of\npressure, threat, coercion or inducement the statement cannot be held as\nconclusive and additions cannot be made by solely relying on a statement