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

148,126 + Rs.182) to the total income of the assessee. 06. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) came to the conclusion that the land and building were part of the block of assets and therefore, the capital gain cannot be computed as Long-Term Capital Gain u/s 45 of the Act and has to be treated as Short

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)

148 of the Act. Thereafter, the statutory notices along with questionnaire were issued. There was no any compliance on the part of the assessee and the assessment was completed by the AO by making addition of Rs. 78,43,300/- on account of short-term capital gain and Rs. 73,60,000/- was added in respect of investment in shares

ACIT, CIRCLLE-34, KOLKATA vs. SUBHAS KUMAR KEDIA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1677/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Acit, Circle-34, Kolkata Vs Subhas Kumar Kedia, 41, N.S.Road, Kolkata Pan No. :Afnpk 9669 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Ms. Shreya Loyalka, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 05.06.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- I) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Erred In Quashing The Order U/S.148A(D) & All Subsequent Proceedings. Ii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Failed To Acknowledge The Fact That The Assesse Had Not Expressed Any Grievance Against The Validity Of Order U/S 148A(D) By Moving Any Writ Petition Which Should Have Been Done In Case Of Any Grievance After Getting The Sald Order U/S.148A(D). Iii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Erred In Quashing The Order When The Ld. Cit(A) Has No Jurisdiction To Deal With The Question Whether The 148A(D) Order Was Passed Validly Or Properly As An Order U/S.148A(D) Is Not An Appealable Order Before Ld. Cit(A) As Per Section 246A.

148 by the NAFAC and the non-passing of the draft assessment order by the AO are not being commented upon. 6.3 Although the assessment order of the AO has been quashed as discussed above the appeal is being decided on merits also. 6.4 The appellant in his grounds of appeal 3 to 7 has assailed the AO for making

ANJU DARUKA,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD - 3(1),, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 148 of the Act after\nrecording reason to believe u/s 148(2) of the Act by the AO. The\nabove reopening was done after the Id. AO received information from\nthe DIT (Investigation) Kolkata that assessee is beneficiary of\naccommodation entries in the form Long Term Capital Gain

BEGRAJ AGARWAL & ORS HUF,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 34(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ito, Ward 34(1), Kolkata Begraj Agarwal & Ors. Huf Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, 110, Diamond Heritage, Unit No.609, Strand Road, Kolkata-700001 Shantipally, Kolkata-700107, Vs. West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabhb8295F Assessee By : Shri S.M. Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Amuldeep Kaur, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.01.2025

capital gain to the tune of ₹94,38,891/-has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act and accordingly, notice u/s 148

BANI BROTO BANERJEE ,KOLKATA vs. CIT(A), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 520/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Bani Broto Banerjee,…………………..…………Appellant Sanskriti, Flat – 3A, 148, Rashbehari Avenue, Near Deshapriya Park, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Abppb0424P] -Vs.- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals),……Respondent Aayakar Bhawan Dakshin, 2, Gariahat Road (South), Kolkata-700031 Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Smt. Ranu Bisws, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 18, 2024 O R D E R

capital gains. For this reason also, there appears to be no infirmity in the conclusion drawn by the CIT(A). Hence, we decline to interfere”. 8. It is also pertinent to observe that Tribunal made reference to the Amendment carried out in section 48 vide Finance Bill, 2023, which is applicable from A.Y. 2024-25. In this amendment

MINAKSHI DAS,JALPAIGURI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(3),, SILIGURI

CAPITAL GAIN\nSale of Items as per list enclosed\n45,45,100\nLess: (cost of acquisition etc.)\n(-) 1741068\nIndexed Cost of Acquisition\n2804032\nINCOMEFROM OTHER SOURCE\nINCOME FROMINTEREST\nInterest from Saving Bank A/c\nS/B Int.\n63565\nInterest on F.d. with banks\nF.D Int\n15885.\nINCOME FROMOTHERS\nLIC commission\n79,450\n85370\n85,370\nGROSS TOTAL INCOME\nLess:- Deduction under

1.INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. ANUSHREYA INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Anushreya Investment Private Kolkata Limited P-7, Chowringhee Square, 5Th Floor, Mangalam-A, 24 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan Hemanta Basu Sarani, Vs. Poorva, Kolkata-700069, Kolkata-700001, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacca3658B Assessee By : Shri N.S. Saini, Ar Revenue By : Shri Susanta Saha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 31.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

148 of the Act, on 27-3-2018 which was issued on the basis of invalid approval granted under Section 151 of the Act. Since the assessee has raised the legal issue under Rule 27, therefore we are inclined to decide the legal issue first. 2.1. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income

SUDHA SURANA,NEW DELHI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 61(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Ito Ward-61(3) Bamboo Villa, Sudha Surana Central Revenue Building, C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, F-26/124, Sector 7, Rohini, Vs. New Delhi-110085 Kolkata-700014, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Adepb5526F Assessee By : Dr. Kapil Goel, Ar Revenue By : Shri H. Robindro Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.04.2025

section 148 of the Act has been made by the ld. AO without any application of mind and also without there being any valid approval given by the competent authority. The ld. AR referring to the reasons recorded which are extracted on page no.2 of the assessment order submitted that even the amount mentioned in the reasons recorded were different

ALOSHA MARKETING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member)

gain during the year nor claimed any loss as short-term capital loss and the assessee has claimed business loss and even the amount alleged in the reasons recorded are incorrect. He thus prayed that reassessment proceeding deserves to be quashed. 6. Before me, ld. Counsel for the assessee has referred to following decisions in support of his contention that

SAROJ EMBRODS PRIVATE LIMITED. ,HOOGHLY vs. DCIT,C.C-3(4), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoysarma]

section 148 of the Act. (d) In the case of Nivi Trading Ltd v Union of India (supra) & others (supra) the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that if more details are sought or some verification is proposed that can not be a substitution for reason which led the AO to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped

M/S. SAROJ EMBRODS PVT. LTD. ,HOOGHLY vs. DCIT, C.C-3(4), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoysarma]

section 148 of the Act. (d) In the case of Nivi Trading Ltd v Union of India (supra) & others (supra) the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that if more details are sought or some verification is proposed that can not be a substitution for reason which led the AO to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped

NIKUNJ DHANUKA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 32, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

capital gain from sale of shares at Rs. 57,46,787/- and exempt income u/s 10(38) of the Act at Rs.41,98,896/-. The return was processed u/s 143(3) of the Act and subsequently, scrutiny proceedings were carried out and assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed on 28/11/2018. So, admittedly, the original return filed

GOUTAM GHOSH,HOWRAH vs. P.C.I.T., KOLKATA - 13, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

gains shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which such transfer takes place and the provisions of this Act, other than the provisions of this sub-section, shall apply for the purpose of determination of full value of consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer. Explanation : For the purposes of this

NARAYAN SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

capital gains which in\nthis case were shares. There was no information which shares had\nbeen transferred and with whom the transaction had taken place. The\nA.O. did not verify the correctness of information received by him but\nmerely accepted the truth of the vague information in a mechanical\nmanner. The A.O. had not even recorded his satisfaction about

ITO, WD.9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S MAHARAJ VINCOM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata……………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…..…..... Respondent 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] C.O. No.6/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…....... Cross-Objector 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] Vs Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata …………..….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 07, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: This Appeal By The Revenue & Corresponding Cross-Objection By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 08.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

capital and share premium received by the assessee during the year under consideration. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A), however, the ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 08.09.2020 has deleted the additions so made by the Assessing Officer. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order

OMPRAKASH DARUKA,RANIGANJ vs. ITO, WARD 3(1), , ASANSOL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.685/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Omprakash Daruka, Vs Ito, Ward-3(1), Asansol C/O S.N.Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street Kolkata-700001 Pan No. : Acqpd 1122 L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Shankar Naskar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R

section 148 of the Act after recording reason to believe u/s 148(2) of the Act by the AO. The above reopening was done after the ld. AO received information from the DIT (Investigation) Kolkata that assessee is beneficiary of accommodation entries in the form Long Term Capital Gain

AJAY GOEL, LEGAL HEIR OF LATE MANJU GOEL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 4(4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2450/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Ajay Goel (Legal Heir Of Late Manju Goel),…Appellant Flat 4H, 4Th Floor, Lake Plaza, 277, Jessore Road, Lake Town, Kolkata-700048 [Pan:Adcpg2207N] -Vs.- Assessing Officer,…………..……….…………...Respondent National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Appearances By: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Susanta Saha, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: March 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 28, 2025 O R D E R

capital gain as unexplained income by wrongly invoking the provision of sec. 68 of the Act. 5. I have heard both the sides. The main contention of the ld. Counsel for the appellant is that the entire reassessment proceedings are bad in law since the notice under section 148