ICI INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

capital gains. It was also observed that the assessee has earned gross dividend of Rs 4.77 crores and claimed the gross amount as exempt u/s 10(33) of the Act without allocating any expense on account of interest and other administrative expenditure. According to ld AO , it is the net dividend after deducting expenses which is exempt

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

2) of Income Tax Act deals with the cases where a capital asset is converted into stock in trade. Whenever a capital asset is converted into stock in trade by an assessee it is deemed as transfer of capital asset and attracts capital gain provisions, in spite of the fact that the ownership of such capital asset doesn't change

LALJI & SONS,BANKURA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - BANKURA, BANKURA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Capital Gains on his part. Thus spirit of issue of notice u/s. 143(2) is served. In this regard it would not be out of place to reproduce the text of section

M/S. NOPANY & SONS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 56(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

section 292BB of the Act was not applicable in this case. The order U/S 143(3) being illegal and void abinitio is liable to be quashed/ cancelled. 5. Without prejudice to the Gr. Nos. 1 to 4 above, the Ld. CIT(A) was wholly wrong and unjustified in confirming the AO's action in assessing the entire sale proceeds

ITO, WARD - 56(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. NOPANY & SONS, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

section 292BB of the Act was not applicable in this case. The order U/S 143(3) being illegal and void abinitio is liable to be quashed/ cancelled. 5. Without prejudice to the Gr. Nos. 1 to 4 above, the Ld. CIT(A) was wholly wrong and unjustified in confirming the AO's action in assessing the entire sale proceeds

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

In the result, Ground r.w

143(3) of the Act on 20/03/2015 and assessed the total income at Rs.1,39,68,151/- interalia, denying the benefit claimed by the assessee u/s 47 (xiv) of the Act, in respect of transfer of assets and liabilities of the proprietary concern M/s. Ravi Jalan to a Private Limited Company, M/s. J.S. Tradex Pvt. Ltd. Consequent to the denial

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR-3(2), GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, GANGTOK SIKKIM

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

143(3B) of the Act on 30.03.2021 at the total income of ₹2,66,72,980/- after making additions/disallowances of - (i) ₹3,65,190/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act for delayed payment of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund, (ii) ₹3,58,787/- u/s 40(a)(ia) Page 3 of 45 I.T.A. Nos.: 1582 & 1583/KOL/2024 Assessment Years

THE DCIT, CIR-3(2) GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED , GANGTOK SIKKIM

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

143(3B) of the Act on 30.03.2021 at the total income of ₹2,66,72,980/- after making additions/disallowances of - (i) ₹3,65,190/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act for delayed payment of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund, (ii) ₹3,58,787/- u/s 40(a)(ia) Page 3 of 45 I.T.A. Nos.: 1582 & 1583/KOL/2024 Assessment Years

DCIT CIR - 6,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S K.B. CAPITAL MARKETS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 1882/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

143(3) of the Act the revenue has accepted the claim of the assessee that gain on sale of shares held as investments give rise to capital gain. The relevant assessment orders were placed in the paper book filed before us. 11. The ld. DR while placing reliance on the order of AO submitted that the facts and circumstances

KB CAPITAL MARKETS (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I,.T CIR - 6 , KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 1882/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

143(3) of the Act the revenue has accepted the claim of the assessee that gain on sale of shares held as investments give rise to capital gain. The relevant assessment orders were placed in the paper book filed before us. 11. The ld. DR while placing reliance on the order of AO submitted that the facts and circumstances

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]

143(3)/254, assumed an alleged conversion of land to stock in trade by the assessee and applied section 45(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and he assumed sale of the entire land. As a result,the Assessing Officer computed the long term capital gain

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]

143(3)/254, assumed an alleged conversion of land to stock in trade by the assessee and applied section 45(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and he assumed sale of the entire land. As a result,the Assessing Officer computed the long term capital gain

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]

143(3)/254, assumed an alleged conversion of land to stock in trade by the assessee and applied section 45(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and he assumed sale of the entire land. As a result,the Assessing Officer computed the long term capital gain

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]

143(3)/254, assumed an alleged conversion of land to stock in trade by the assessee and applied section 45(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and he assumed sale of the entire land. As a result,the Assessing Officer computed the long term capital gain

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]

143(3)/254, assumed an alleged conversion of land to stock in trade by the assessee and applied section 45(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and he assumed sale of the entire land. As a result,the Assessing Officer computed the long term capital gain

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)

section 143(3) that the Assessing Officer had accepted the claim of short-term capital gains and long-term capital gains of the assessee. Hence the principles of consistency should be followed in the instant case. Though the principle of res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings, the principle of consistency cannot be given ago by. [Para

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)

section 143(3) that the Assessing Officer had accepted the claim of short-term capital gains and long-term capital gains of the assessee. Hence the principles of consistency should be followed in the instant case. Though the principle of res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings, the principle of consistency cannot be given ago by. [Para

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)

section 143(3) that the Assessing Officer had accepted the claim of short-term capital gains and long-term capital gains of the assessee. Hence the principles of consistency should be followed in the instant case. Though the principle of res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings, the principle of consistency cannot be given ago by. [Para

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)

section 143(3) that the Assessing Officer had accepted the claim of short-term capital gains and long-term capital gains of the assessee. Hence the principles of consistency should be followed in the instant case. Though the principle of res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings, the principle of consistency cannot be given ago by. [Para