SKYBRIDGE REAL ESTATES LLP,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 34, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Skybridge Real Estates Llp Dcit, Circle -34, 24, Hemant Basu Sarani, Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, 110, Mangalam-A, 5Th Floor, Room Shanti Pally, E.M. Bypass, Vs. No.507, Kolkata-700001, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acvfs7139R Assessee By : Shri N.S. Saini, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Ruchika Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2024

Capital Gain of ₹1,47,27,000/- which the assessee has claimed as exempt, rejected and treated as business income of the assessee in the assessment framed u/s 143(3) read with section 144B

MANISH PARASRAMPURIA,KOLKATA vs. A.O., NFAC / D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-43, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

Capital Gain of Rs.39,41,595/- is genuine and bonafide transaction, as such, the same is liable to be taxed at Special Rate u/s. 111A of the Act.” 3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that he is not pressing ground nos. 4 and 5 which deal with merit of the case and that he is restricting

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SOMANI SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

Bench: the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata.

Capital gains - Income arising from transfer of long term securities (Reassessment) - Assessment year 2013-14 - Assessment order was passed in case of assessee under section 147 read with section 144B

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SOMANI SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

Bench: the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata.

Capital gains - Income arising from transfer of long term securities (Reassessment) - Assessment year 2013-14 - Assessment order was passed in case of assessee under section 147 read with section 144B

KALYANI KOLEY,HOWRAH vs. CIT(A), KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

section 144B of the Act did not survive and the same is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. 7. For that further and in any event and without prejudice to the aforesaid the CIT(Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.7,66,235/- as Long Term Capital Gain

ARCHANA BAID,SILCHAR, ASSAM vs. I.T.O., WARD - 34(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2013-14

144B of the Income-tax Act was passed on 23.03.2022 and the income was assessed at Rs. 33,52,340/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) but the same was dismissed as two years had elapsed since the filing of the appeal yet the assessee could not gather relevant material evidences

RAJ KUMAR GOENKA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1),, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

144B of the Act, dated 06.09.2022. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “I. FOR THAT the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, "CIT(A)") erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant without giving any opportunity of hearing to the appellant and such purported

RAMOTAR CHOUDHARI HUF,KOLKATA vs. PCIT 5 KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1336/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ramotar Choudhari Huf.……..…………............…...……………....Appellant 7Th Floor, R.N 25 Fortuna Tower, 23A N.S. Road, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aanhr9093K] Vs. Pcit-5, Kolkata………….…...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Pransukha, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 06, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 09, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 18.10.2023 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr. Cit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Action Of The Pr. Cit In Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act & Thereby Directing The Assessing Officer To Frame The Assessment Afresh. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,55,970/- On 21.01.2014. Thereafter, An Information Was Received By The Assessing Officer From Investigation Wing That The Assessee Has

144B on 30/03/2022 determining total income of Rs.2,55,970/- accepting the return income of the assesse. 4.2 On examination of the assessment record, it is observed from the accounts filed that the assessee has claimed exempt Long Term Capital Gain amounting u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the tune

S.R.P. INFOCOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

section 144B of the Act dated 27.03.2022. Through this order, the following additions were made: (a) Rs. 19,06,266/- added on account of sale of shares of M/s Paulmech Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. 2 S.R.P. Infocom Pvt. Ltd. (b) Rs. 1,63,50,000/- has been added on account of alleged unexplained investments in unlisted equity shares. It has also

SUKLA BANERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 22(2),, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

Capital Gain, etc. In order to determine the accurate cost of acquisition as on 01.04.2001, the AO referred this matter to District Valuation Officer u/s 142A of the IT Act. The DVO determined the cost of acquisition as Rs.20,86,000/- as per guidelines for valuation of immovable property for 2009. The report of the DVO was forwarded

TATUN GUHA,SILIGURI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(1),, SILIGURI

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2013-14 Tatun Guha………..………….……………………….……….……….……Appellant Namita Nilay, College Para, Siliguri, W.B - 734001.. [Pan: Ahbpg6041R] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Siliguri………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sujit Basu & Rajib Mukherjee, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 27, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 01.07.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

capital gain was issued on 24.03.2022. The Assessing Officer did not accept the submission of the assessee being tenable and made an addition of Rs.2,63,44,488/- in the total income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed

BIMAL BARAI ,DARJEELING vs. ITO, WARD 1(2),, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by making an addition of ₹42,30,419 on account of short-term capital gain

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 12(1), KOLKATA vs. VASA COMMERCIAL PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the cross objection of the assessee as well as\nappeal of the Revenue are dismissed

Capital Gain arising from penny stock in\nthe assessment framed u/s 147 read with section 144B of the Act\ndated

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

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

capital gain, house property and other sources. The Assessing Officer framed the assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act by making two additions – (i) the value assessed by the DVO Rs.37,53,227/- and second the amount of cash deposits in the bank account which according to the AO remained unexplained amounting to Rs.67,30,100/-. Thereafter

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

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

capital gain, house property and other sources. The Assessing Officer framed the assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act by making two additions – (i) the value assessed by the DVO Rs.37,53,227/- and second the amount of cash deposits in the bank account which according to the AO remained unexplained amounting to Rs.67,30,100/-. Thereafter

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

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

capital gain, house property and other sources. The Assessing Officer framed the assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act by making two additions – (i) the value assessed by the DVO Rs.37,53,227/- and second the amount of cash deposits in the bank account which according to the AO remained unexplained amounting to Rs.67,30,100/-. Thereafter

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

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

capital gain, house property and other sources. The Assessing Officer framed the assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act by making two additions – (i) the value assessed by the DVO Rs.37,53,227/- and second the amount of cash deposits in the bank account which according to the AO remained unexplained amounting to Rs.67,30,100/-. Thereafter

ANANDA SWARUP NUNDY,HOOGHLY vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 23(1), , HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 1662/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ananda Swarup Nundy Ruplal Nundy Road, Vs Dcit, Circle 23(1), Chandannagore,. Hooghly, Aayakar Bhawan, G.T. Road. Khadina West Bengal, 712136 More, P.O. - Chinsurah, Hooghty, West Bengal, 712102 [Pan : Aegpn3979P] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent)

section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 19th May, 2021. Ananda Swarup Nundy; A.Y. 2018-19 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual filed his return of income on 29th July, 2018, declaring total income of ₹3,61,480/- by claiming a long term capital loss

ADITI MITRA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 37(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 25/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Aditi Mitra,…………………………………...……Appellant Flat No. 401, Block No. 12, Ujaas, The Condoville, 69, S.K. Deb Road, Kolkata-700048, West Bengal [Pan:Aczpb6415H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………....Respondent Ward-37(3), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Finally, the assessee approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 251 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the assessee