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

142(1) of the Act dated 15.02.2017 to furnish the following details: a. Copies of sale deed and purchase deed in relation to transaction made in the year b. Computation sheet c. Capital gains calculation d. Supporting & working for Deduction under the head Capital gains e. All Bank statements 8. The assessee attended the hearings before the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA vs. SMT. SHIKHA ROY, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

1) of the Act does not say from whom the consideration money is to be received for es not say from whom the consideration money is to be received for es not say from whom the consideration money is to be received for transfer of a capital asset and, further, transfer of a capital asset and, further, Section

ZAFAR IQBAL,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

Capital Gains Account Scheme before the due date for filing returns under Section 139(1) was not fatal to the claim. The Tribunal also found that the assessee owned only one residential property and allowed the deduction.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "54F", "139(1)", "139(4)", "250", "143(2)", "142

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

142(1) of the Act, the assessee furnished the documents including conveyance deed. According to which, the said forth value of the property was ₹4,11,00,000/- [₹3,61,35,000/- for land + ₹49,65,000/- for structure (building) and he assessee determined the Long Term Capital Loss at ₹12,35,377/- as under:- “Long Term Capital Gain/ (Loss

D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KILBURN ENGINEERING LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2009-10

section (1), the amount, if any, already utilised by the assessee for the purchase or construction of the new asset together with the amount so deposited shall be deemed to be the cost of the new asset :” 14. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held Sec.139(4) which is akin to Sec.139(5) of the Act in the present

INFINITY INFOTECH PARKS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-1, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am ]

Section 50 of the Act, the excess/ gain over the WDV of the fixed asset has to be taxed as 'Short Term Capital Gain'. However, it cannot be denied that the act of entering into 'long term leases’ is the business activity of the assessee and the income, which is assessed by way of capital gain, bears the character

VIKASH SOLVEXTRACTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ground Nos

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

1,14,26,980/- (after deduction of Rs. 4,50,00,000 for capital Gains Bonds purchased). Subsequently, the CIT, Kolkata-II, vide her order u/s 263 of the Act, dated 14.12.2010, set aside the said assessment. The CIT in her order u/s 263, observed that the Assessing Officer had failed to perform his duty so far as the verification

VIKASH SOLVEXTRACTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ground Nos

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

1,14,26,980/- (after deduction of Rs. 4,50,00,000 for capital Gains Bonds purchased). Subsequently, the CIT, Kolkata-II, vide her order u/s 263 of the Act, dated 14.12.2010, set aside the said assessment. The CIT in her order u/s 263, observed that the Assessing Officer had failed to perform his duty so far as the verification

VIKASH SOLVEXTRACTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ground Nos

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

1,14,26,980/- (after deduction of Rs. 4,50,00,000 for capital Gains Bonds purchased). Subsequently, the CIT, Kolkata-II, vide her order u/s 263 of the Act, dated 14.12.2010, set aside the said assessment. The CIT in her order u/s 263, observed that the Assessing Officer had failed to perform his duty so far as the verification

VIKASH SOLVEXTRACTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ground Nos

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

1,14,26,980/- (after deduction of Rs. 4,50,00,000 for capital Gains Bonds purchased). Subsequently, the CIT, Kolkata-II, vide her order u/s 263 of the Act, dated 14.12.2010, set aside the said assessment. The CIT in her order u/s 263, observed that the Assessing Officer had failed to perform his duty so far as the verification

VIKASH SOLVEXTRACTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ground Nos

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

1,14,26,980/- (after deduction of Rs. 4,50,00,000 for capital Gains Bonds purchased). Subsequently, the CIT, Kolkata-II, vide her order u/s 263 of the Act, dated 14.12.2010, set aside the said assessment. The CIT in her order u/s 263, observed that the Assessing Officer had failed to perform his duty so far as the verification

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]

142(1) of the Act and after hearing the Ld. AR of the assessee has passed the 143(3) order on 02.01.2014 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(5) and 144C(13) of the Act, determining the total assessed income (long term capital gain) at Rs.30,98,86,270/-. Later on the Ld. Pr. CIT vide show cause notice dated

SAROJ GOENKA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 30(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

142(1) of the Act along with\nquestionnaire were issued and served to the assessee. The reason\nfor selection in scrutiny in this case was large deduction claimed\nu/s 54F of the Act. The assessee during the year had sold\n36,00,000 shares of Emami Ltd. on 13.07.2020at total sale\nconsideration of Rs. 33,77,64,511/- resulting

SHRI RAGHVENDRA MOHTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

gain from sale of shares of Ashika Credit Capital Ltd. of Rs.29,73,500/- for sale of Rs.42,27,500/- which has been claimed as exempt u/s. 10(38) of the Act. Several other disallowance/additions were made towards bogus interest u/s. 69C, interest expenditure attributable to negative capital, u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D and on account of dividend stripping

BIMLA DEVI AGRAWAL,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T./D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 34, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

capital gains and the assessee had objected to the valuation adopted for the purpose of stamp duty. The Ld. AO referred the matter to the DVO under sub-section (2A) of section 142 of the Act while the matter should have been referred u/s 50C(2) of the Act. It was argued that sub-rule (2A) of section 142 relates

SMT.BARNALI DHAR,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-34, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Barnali Dhar Acit, Circle-34, Kolkata C/O. S.D. Verma, Advocate, 2Nd Floor, 7, Vs. Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. Pan: Ajppd 6989 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Acit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short ‘A.Y.’) 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 10, Kolkata Dated 30.07.2019 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(In Short ‘The Act’) Dated 27.12.2017. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)- 10 Was Not Justified In Not Deleting A Sum Of Rs. 9933057/- Being The Amount Wrongly Included By The Appellant Under The Head Capital Gain, While Filing Return Of Income Whereas As Per Section 54F No Amount Is Liable To Be Taxed. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add/Alter Or Modify Any Grounds Of Appeal At Hearing Stage.”

142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 were issued to assessee, in response to the same, the ld. AR appeared and submitted balance sheet, profit and loss account and the details as requisitioned in notice. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee has realized capital gain of Rs. 2,15,90,819/-. The calculation

ACIT, CIRCLE - 25, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. MALA ROY & OTHERS, KOLKATA

In the result, this appeal of the In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

142 or section 148. This is clearly not the case here because the petitione the case here because the petitioner did file the return. Since there was no failure to r did file the return. Since there was no failure to make the return, the escapement of income cannot be attributed to such failure. This make the return, the escapement

ACIT, CIRCLE - 25, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. MALA ROY & OTHERS, KOLKATA

In the result, this appeal of the In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

142 or section 148. This is clearly not the case here because the petitione the case here because the petitioner did file the return. Since there was no failure to r did file the return. Since there was no failure to make the return, the escapement of income cannot be attributed to such failure. This make the return, the escapement