SPML INFRA LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT-1 , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Manish Borad)

section will be attracted. (iii) An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will suffice the requirement of order being erroneous. (iv) If the order is passed without application of mind, such order will fall under the category of erroneous order. (v) Every loss of revenue cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interestss of the Revenue

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 2005-06

section 2(47) of the I.T.Act, 1961. 27.4. The AO on a consideration of the above submissions, however referred to Clause 4.5 of the Agreement which provides as follows: "The owner agrees to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the said Land together with the existing structures to the Developer on or before January, 31, 2005" and clause

INFINITY INFOTECH,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

capital gain and expenditure on account of commission and brokerage. (b) in respect of other items the show cause notice u/s 263 of the Act did not contain the allegation that there was failure on the part of the AO to make and proper enquiries before completing the assessment but the order has been passed on that ground holding that

KESHAV SARAF,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-15, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Gains or Short Term capital loss by various beneficiaries. 9.2 .Moreover, the A.O. also did not consider other surrounding circumstances such as no worthwhile profit or dividend paying record of the said CCL International Ltd. in the past years to command such fancy valuation / rise in its share price from Rs. 91/- per share in December, 2013 to an average

ITO,WARD-9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MID LAND PROJECTS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

section 50C for the purpose of computing capital gains on sale of the same. In view of the aforesaid facts and findings, we hold that the Learned CIT(A) is right in restricting the capital gains at Rs. 3,56,354/- as against Rs. 45,62,018/- made by the Learned AO. Accordingly, the ground no. 1 raised

KAMALESH BASU,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-29(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Kamalesh Basu Vs. Cit(A)-Xvi, Kolkata 29/1/1, Chetla Central Road, Kolkata – 700 027. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aeapb 6771 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

gains and does not ‘transfer’ as per section 2(47) of the Act, because ultimately the capital remains with the mutual fund only. For bona fide belief, we rely of the following judgments: (1)Rajendra vs. ACIT (2O1O) 127

SATISH KUMAR LAKHMANI,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"ी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. टी. वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

section 263( 1) was justified. • Raimandir Estates (P) Ltd Vs PCIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 285 (SC)/(2017) 245 Taxman 127 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed SLP against High Court's ruling that where assessee with a small amount of authorised share capital, raised huge sum on account of premium, exercise of revisionary powers by Commissioner opining

SRI SURYA PRAKASH BAGLA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narsimha Chary, Jm]

127 of the Income-tax Act on your appellant ; b) without making full and complete compliance required with reference to section 153C and without proper recording of satisfaction etc. since in respect of all the additions made in the hands of the petitioner, the papers and documents had been seized not from your appellant but from some other persons

DCIT,CC-VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SURYA PRAKASH BAGLA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narsimha Chary, Jm]

127 of the Income-tax Act on your appellant ; b) without making full and complete compliance required with reference to section 153C and without proper recording of satisfaction etc. since in respect of all the additions made in the hands of the petitioner, the papers and documents had been seized not from your appellant but from some other persons

SRI SURYA PRAKASH BAGLA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narsimha Chary, Jm]

127 of the Income-tax Act on your appellant ; b) without making full and complete compliance required with reference to section 153C and without proper recording of satisfaction etc. since in respect of all the additions made in the hands of the petitioner, the papers and documents had been seized not from your appellant but from some other persons

SAKUNTALA BASU,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-29(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.528/Kol/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07 Sakuntala Basu Vs. C.I.T– Xvi, Kolkata Ito Ward 29 (4) 29/1/1, Chetla Central Road, Kolkata – 27. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aihpb 8814A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :None Respondent By :Shri Kalyannath, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13/07/2017 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2006-07, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – Xvi, Kolkata, In Appeal No.17/Cit(A)-Xvi/Wd-29(4)/Kol/12-13 Dated 26.12.2013, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Ao U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 29.06.2009. 2. Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

gains and does not ‘transfer’ as per section 2(47) of the Act, because ultimately the capital remains with the mutual fund only. For bona fide belief, we rely of the following judgments: (1)Rajendra vs. ACIT (2O1O) 127

M/S SRINATH JI FURNISHING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-5, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees (In ITA No

Bench: Shri A.T, Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am M/S. Raipur Steel Casting India (P) Ltd. Vs. P.C.I.T.,-5, Kolkata Pan: Aaacg 8490M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

capital gains made by him for the purpose of purchasing and/or acquiring the aforesaid assets. We find therefore that on this ground also, the assessee is liable to succeed. The appeals are, accordingly, allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside.” Having gone through the second judgment, in the case of M/s. Fibre Boards, 62Taxmann.com135(S.C.) (supra

RAIPUR STEEL CASTING INDIA (P)) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-5, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees (In ITA No

Bench: Shri A.T, Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am M/S. Raipur Steel Casting India (P) Ltd. Vs. P.C.I.T.,-5, Kolkata Pan: Aaacg 8490M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

capital gains made by him for the purpose of purchasing and/or acquiring the aforesaid assets. We find therefore that on this ground also, the assessee is liable to succeed. The appeals are, accordingly, allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside.” Having gone through the second judgment, in the case of M/s. Fibre Boards, 62Taxmann.com135(S.C.) (supra

RAJROOP DOSHI,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 2(1),, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gains/\ncapital gains/ loss on sale of property and investment in immovable\nproperty. The notice u/s 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the\nAct) dated 09.08.2018, was issued by ITO ward 2(3), Kolkata.\nThereafter, the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire\nwas issued on 21.10.2019. The assessee filed the copy of\ncomputation

RACHIT LAKHMANI ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

section 263( 1) was justified. • Raimandir Estates (P) Ltd Vs PCIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 285 (SC)/(2017) 245 Taxman 127 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed SLP against High Court's ruling that where assessee with a small amount of authorised share capital, raised huge sum on account of premium, exercise of revisionary powers by Commissioner opining

PRAVESH KUMAR LAKHMANI ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10 , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

section 263( 1) was justified. • Raimandir Estates (P) Ltd Vs PCIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 285 (SC)/(2017) 245 Taxman 127 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed SLP against High Court's ruling that where assessee with a small amount of authorised share capital, raised huge sum on account of premium, exercise of revisionary powers by Commissioner opining

JAIKISHAN LAKHMANI ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10 , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

section 263( 1) was justified. • Raimandir Estates (P) Ltd Vs PCIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 285 (SC)/(2017) 245 Taxman 127 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed SLP against High Court's ruling that where assessee with a small amount of authorised share capital, raised huge sum on account of premium, exercise of revisionary powers by Commissioner opining

RITIN LAKHMANI,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT - 10 , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

section 263( 1) was justified. • Raimandir Estates (P) Ltd Vs PCIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 285 (SC)/(2017) 245 Taxman 127 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed SLP against High Court's ruling that where assessee with a small amount of authorised share capital, raised huge sum on account of premium, exercise of revisionary powers by Commissioner opining