PINKY AGARWAL ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

capital loss /long- term capital gains as the case may be, we note that apart from placing reliance on the statements, the revenue authorities have also referred to the report of the investigation Wing which carried out search and survey in some other cases prior to the conclusion of assessment proceedings in the instant appeals and such investigation included

M/S. NISHIT AGARWAL BENEFICIARY TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC - 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

capital loss /long- term capital gains as the case may be, we note that apart from placing reliance on the statements, the revenue authorities have also referred to the report of the investigation Wing which carried out search and survey in some other cases prior to the conclusion of assessment proceedings in the instant appeals and such investigation included

M/S. GATEWAY FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC - 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

capital loss /long- term capital gains as the case may be, we note that apart from placing reliance on the statements, the revenue authorities have also referred to the report of the investigation Wing which carried out search and survey in some other cases prior to the conclusion of assessment proceedings in the instant appeals and such investigation included

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

section 155 of the Act are as under: “Other amendments. 155. (15) Where in the assessment for any year, a capital gain

D.C.I.T.CC - XXVIII,KOL., KOLKATA vs. M/S BINANI INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

155 (Mumbai – Trib) dated 30.1.2015, wherein it was held that : “4. We have heard the parties and perused the material on record. We are wholly unimpressed with the assessee’s argument supporting his working of the expenditure relatable to income not forming part of total income under the Act on the ground that ‘mind’ is his principal asset

RITZ SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD- 12(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Gain at ₹24,28,372/-. The main contention of the assessee is that transfer of leasehold rights will not attract Section 50C of the Act. 17. So, in order to appreciate the rival contentions on this issue, it would be apt to consider the prescription of Sub-Section (1) of Section 50C of the Act, which is as under

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]

155 is the report of the valuer in support of the long term capital gain in the light of the documentary evidence filed by the assessee it cannot be said that there was no failure on the part of AO to make proper and adequate enquiries with regard to the computation of long term capital gain. The exercise of jurisdiction

ACIT, CIR-29, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SMT SURJIT KAUR UBEROI, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 181/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Acit, Circle-29, Kolkata -Vs- Smt. Surjit Kaur Uberoi [Pan: Aanup 4301 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 13/Kol/2016 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No. 181/Kol/2016 ) Assessment Year : 2012-13 Smt. Surjit Kaur Uberoi -Vs- Acit, Circle-29, Kolkata [Pan: Aanup 4301 P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 02.02.2015 for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2 ITA No.181/Kol/2016& C.O.13/Kol/2017 Smt. Surjit Kaur Oberoi A.Yr.2012-13 2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal of the revenue is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in directing

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. A R SULPHONATES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

gain taxation u/s. 50C is restricted to land or building or both on which the said deeming provision would apply. According to him, this section does not make a specific reference to “rights in lands or building” which otherwise is included in other provisions in the Act. According to him, legislature had made specific reference to “rights in lands

USHA MARTIN VENTURES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2009-10 Usha Martin Ventures V/S. Dcit, Circle-6 Ltd., 24, R.N.Mukherjee Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, Road, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata- Chowringhee Squre, 700 001 Kolkata-700 069 [Pan No.Aaacu 3843 J] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

capital gains”. The Assessing Officer found that the purpose of selling share at a price less than market value/ book value was to escape from the tax liability therefore, it was disallowed by AO. However, from the above facts, we understand that genuineness of the transaction of sale and purchase of share with assessee and buyer-company has not been

M/S. ICI INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

gains of business or profession” shall be – ITA No.2613/Kol/05,488/Kol/06, 1019 & 852/Kol/07 AYs 02-03 & 03-04 ACIT Cir-10 Kol. v. AKZO Novel India Ltd. Page 20 (i) In accordance with the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee; and (ii) Further adjusted to include the amount of any tax, duty, cess or fee (by whatever name called

M/S. ICI INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

gains of business or profession” shall be – ITA No.2613/Kol/05,488/Kol/06, 1019 & 852/Kol/07 AYs 02-03 & 03-04 ACIT Cir-10 Kol. v. AKZO Novel India Ltd. Page 20 (i) In accordance with the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee; and (ii) Further adjusted to include the amount of any tax, duty, cess or fee (by whatever name called

ACIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ICI INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

gains of business or profession” shall be – ITA No.2613/Kol/05,488/Kol/06, 1019 & 852/Kol/07 AYs 02-03 & 03-04 ACIT Cir-10 Kol. v. AKZO Novel India Ltd. Page 20 (i) In accordance with the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee; and (ii) Further adjusted to include the amount of any tax, duty, cess or fee (by whatever name called

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ICI INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

gains of business or profession” shall be – ITA No.2613/Kol/05,488/Kol/06, 1019 & 852/Kol/07 AYs 02-03 & 03-04 ACIT Cir-10 Kol. v. AKZO Novel India Ltd. Page 20 (i) In accordance with the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee; and (ii) Further adjusted to include the amount of any tax, duty, cess or fee (by whatever name called

ADITYA VIKRAM SUREKA, HUF,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 34(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 1650/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Aditya Vikram Sureka Huf -Vs- Ito, Ward-34(2) , Kolkata [Pan: Aamha 4069 D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 29.12.2016 for the Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Though the assessee had raised various grounds before us, the only effective issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in confirming the addition made towards unexplained cash credit

MALLIKA INVESTMENT CO. (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A. No. 1245/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2008-09

section 2(47)(v) in order to arrive at the impugned conclusion , so we are inclined to set aside the impugned order. However, we note that any profit or gain arising from the transfer of a capital asset is chargeable to tax under the head “capital gain” and is deemed to be the income of the financial year in which

D.C.I.T CIR - 12,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S JCT LIMITED., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A Nos. 1106 To 1109/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2004-05, 2006-07,2007-08 & 2008-09 D.C.I.T., Circle-12, -Vs.- M/S. J.C.T. Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaacj 6733 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Angam Shaiza, Cit For The Respondent : Shri A.K.Gupta, Fca

gains of business " shall be adjusted by , the . amount paid as tax, duty, cess or fee. Therefore, the expression "incurred" in section 145A (b) must be construed to mean the liability actually incurred by the assessee. Though the 5 A.Y.2004-05,2006-07 to 2008-09 date of manufacture is the relevant date for dutiability, the relevant date for the duty

SUBRATA DAW,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-36(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Capital Gain and (d) Income from Other Sources. Scrutiny Assessment was selected through CASS. The assessee was the owner of 1/4th share in an ancestral joint family property comprising of land and building situated at 152,153,154, & 155, Maniktala Main Road, Kolkata -700054 which was totally sold out by 2 Subrata Daw, AY 2012-13 a Registered Deed dated