AMBO AGRO PRODUCTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE PCIT, KOLKATA-1, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 50B of also refers to transfer of an undertaking or division by way of sale i.e. ‘slump sale' and prescribes the mode of computing and calculating capital gains on such transactions.” 30. Now let us examine the MOU and the BTA entered into by the assessee and buyer M/s. K. S. Oil and reproduce the important recitals from them

EMAMI INDRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

12-2009 to Rs.4390 share on 11.02.2010. Accordingly, show cause 2 notice dt:18-01-2013 was issued to assessee seeking explanation why the sale price per share of Zandu Realty Ltd should not be taken at Rs.3989.80 being the average price traded at NSE as on 31-03- 2010 against sale price of Rs.2100 per share taken

PURUSHOTTAM DAS AGARWAL ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 35(1) , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Years :2012-13 Soumitra Choudhury V/S. Acit, Circle-12 28C, Satish Mukherjee 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Road, Kolkata-700026 Kidwai Road, [Pan No.Acnpc 4627 Q] Kolkarta-16 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Miraj D Shah, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sankar Halder, Jcit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 13-03-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing Assessment Year :2015-16 Purushottam Das Agarwal V/S. Income Tax Officer, C/O Balaji Enterprises, Ward-35(1), Aayakar 83/85 N.S. Road, Ground Bhawan Porva, 110, Floor, Kolkata Shantipally, Kokata- [Pan No.Actpa 9138 Q] 107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Subash Agarwal Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sankar Halder, Jcit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 14-03-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 15-03-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- These Two Assessees Have Filed Their Instant Appeal(S) For Assessment Year(S) 2012-13 & 2015-16 Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax

section 68 is called for. Since the assessee has placed the contract note, payment through cheques identifying the company whose shares were transacted, the genuineness of claim of long term capital gain should not have been doubted. We do not find merit in these contentions of the assessee in the light of the facts that there is prevalent practice

SOUMITRA CHOUDHURY ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 22 , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Years :2012-13 Soumitra Choudhury V/S. Acit, Circle-12 28C, Satish Mukherjee 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Road, Kolkata-700026 Kidwai Road, [Pan No.Acnpc 4627 Q] Kolkarta-16 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Miraj D Shah, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sankar Halder, Jcit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 13-03-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing Assessment Year :2015-16 Purushottam Das Agarwal V/S. Income Tax Officer, C/O Balaji Enterprises, Ward-35(1), Aayakar 83/85 N.S. Road, Ground Bhawan Porva, 110, Floor, Kolkata Shantipally, Kokata- [Pan No.Actpa 9138 Q] 107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Subash Agarwal Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sankar Halder, Jcit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 14-03-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 15-03-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- These Two Assessees Have Filed Their Instant Appeal(S) For Assessment Year(S) 2012-13 & 2015-16 Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax

section 68 is called for. Since the assessee has placed the contract note, payment through cheques identifying the company whose shares were transacted, the genuineness of claim of long term capital gain should not have been doubted. We do not find merit in these contentions of the assessee in the light of the facts that there is prevalent practice

JCT LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

12,01,60,348/- Capital Gain Rs. 107,98,39,652/- 2.2. However, the Ld. AO did not accept the above computation and disputed the nature of the capital gain. As per the AO, the ownership of the above land came to the appellant company subsidiary only in 2010 i.e. when the nature of land changed from leasehold to freehold

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. JCT LTD., , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

12,01,60,348/- Capital Gain Rs. 107,98,39,652/- 2.2. However, the Ld. AO did not accept the above computation and disputed the nature of the capital gain. As per the AO, the ownership of the above land came to the appellant company subsidiary only in 2010 i.e. when the nature of land changed from leasehold to freehold

THE UNITED PROVINCES SUGAR COMPANY LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 12(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

gains, taxable u/s 45 of the Act and realisation of capital due to improvement of capital asset by way of external realisation of capital due to improvement of capital asset by way of external realisation of capital due to improvement of capital asset by way of external development over a long period of time. r a long period of time

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. SHRI SAROJ KUMAR PODDAR, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble]

Section 56(2)(vii) of the that the department has conceded the ground of taxability under Section 56(2)(vii) of the that the department has conceded the ground of taxability under Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. 10.4. The ld. CIT D/R further submitted that the power

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 (LTCG") on sale of both land and build- ing without appreciating that the building formed part of block of assets and hence as per provisions of Section 43(6) only 'moneys payable" in respect of such building was required to be reduced from the relevant block of assets. 6.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case

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 (LTCG") on sale of both land and build- ing without appreciating that the building formed part of block of assets and hence as per provisions of Section 43(6) only 'moneys payable" in respect of such building was required to be reduced from the relevant block of assets. 6.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case

SURESH KUMAR PODDAR,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 63(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

capital gain and Rs. 73,60,000/- was added in respect of investment in shares of M/s Shri Ganesh Spinners Limited, controlled and manage Shri Shah. The assessment was framed by the AO was affirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 6. The ld AR vehemently submitted that the assessment framed by the AO u/s 144/147 of the Act vide order

REACHASIA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR.-29, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

12. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) dated 28.08.2019 passed for A.Y. 2014-15. 12.1. The grievance of the assessee is that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.61,25,000/-, which was claimed under section 35(1)(ii) of the Income

HIRALAL BHANDARI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-37(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

12. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) dated 28.08.2019 passed for A.Y. 2014-15. 12.1. The grievance of the assessee is that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.61,25,000/-, which was claimed under section 35(1)(ii) of the Income

HIRALAL BHANDARI, LEGAL HAIR OF LATE CHAMPALAL BHANDARI,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-37, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

12. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) dated 28.08.2019 passed for A.Y. 2014-15. 12.1. The grievance of the assessee is that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.61,25,000/-, which was claimed under section 35(1)(ii) of the Income

HIRALAL BHANDARI, LEGAL HAIR OF LATE CHAMPALAL BHANDARI,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-37, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

12. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) dated 28.08.2019 passed for A.Y. 2014-15. 12.1. The grievance of the assessee is that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.61,25,000/-, which was claimed under section 35(1)(ii) of the Income

HIRALAL BHANDARI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-37(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

12. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) dated 28.08.2019 passed for A.Y. 2014-15. 12.1. The grievance of the assessee is that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.61,25,000/-, which was claimed under section 35(1)(ii) of the Income

PS MAGNUM,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-29, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

12. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) dated 28.08.2019 passed for A.Y. 2014-15. 12.1. The grievance of the assessee is that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.61,25,000/-, which was claimed under section 35(1)(ii) of the Income

M/S COALSALE CO.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-34, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tarasafe International Private Limited,......................Appellant C/O. Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Gobindpur, Kolkata-700141 [Pan:Aadct0645E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-15(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

12. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) dated 28.08.2019 passed for A.Y. 2014-15. 12.1. The grievance of the assessee is that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.61,25,000/-, which was claimed under section 35(1)(ii) of the Income