SMT SAKI GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of both the assessee’s are partly allowed

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

Section 54EC and also the claim of investment of Rs.3,50,000/- and have recomputed the Long Term Capital Gain at Rs.69,10,115/-. He also observed that no details/evidence with regard to the assessee's claim for Cost of Improvement for 3 Smt. Sarbani Gupta & Smt. Saki Gupta, AY 2009-10 Rs.14,50,000/- could be filed despite several

SMT SARBANI GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of both the assessee’s are partly allowed

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

Section 54EC and also the claim of investment of Rs.3,50,000/- and have recomputed the Long Term Capital Gain at Rs.69,10,115/-. He also observed that no details/evidence with regard to the assessee's claim for Cost of Improvement for 3 Smt. Sarbani Gupta & Smt. Saki Gupta, AY 2009-10 Rs.14,50,000/- could be filed despite several

SWETA SONTHALIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

167 taxmann.com 662 (Ahmedabad- Trib.) dated of order 05.07.2024 (Ahmedabad ITAT) v) Challa Satish Reddy (HUF) vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1) in ITA No. 46/Hyd/2020 date of order 20.06.2022 (Hyderabad ITAT) 5. Contrary to that the Ld. D.R supports the impugned order. 6. Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties, we have perused the order

EMAMI INDRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

167 per. share and computed the capital gains accordingly by invoking provisions of sec 52 (2). However the Hon'ble High Court of Kolkota finally held that "there is no finding by any of the authorities that the assessee had actually received more as consideration than what the assessee had declared. The said section

JCT LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

Section 2(42A) is extracted as under: “short term capital asset’ means a capital asset held by an assessee for not more than thirty-six months immediately preceding the date of transfer;” In this provision, the Legislature has used the expression ‘held’ as against “owned”. Therefore, the contention of the AO that ownership is relevant is not in accordance with

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. JCT LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

Section 2(42A) is extracted as under: “short term capital asset’ means a capital asset held by an assessee for not more than thirty-six months immediately preceding the date of transfer;” In this provision, the Legislature has used the expression ‘held’ as against “owned”. Therefore, the contention of the AO that ownership is relevant is not in accordance with

OBEROI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri. Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

gains tax as per provisionsof Section 55 (2) (a) of the Act and erroneously proceeded on such unwarranted assumption wrongfully and illegallyattributed to the assessee's Counsel?" Let the Paper Book be filed within 8 weeks from date. Let the appeal be listed for hearing 12 weeks hence. All parties concerned are to act on a xerox signed copy

DCIT, CIR-8, KOLKATA ,KOLKATA vs. OBEROI HOTELS PVT. LTD. , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri. Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

gains tax as per provisionsof Section 55 (2) (a) of the Act and erroneously proceeded on such unwarranted assumption wrongfully and illegallyattributed to the assessee's Counsel?" Let the Paper Book be filed within 8 weeks from date. Let the appeal be listed for hearing 12 weeks hence. All parties concerned are to act on a xerox signed copy

OBEROI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-8, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri. Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

gains tax as per provisionsof Section 55 (2) (a) of the Act and erroneously proceeded on such unwarranted assumption wrongfully and illegallyattributed to the assessee's Counsel?" Let the Paper Book be filed within 8 weeks from date. Let the appeal be listed for hearing 12 weeks hence. All parties concerned are to act on a xerox signed copy

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 2005-06

section 2(47) of the I.T.Act, 1961. 27.4. The AO on a consideration of the above submissions, however referred to Clause 4.5 of the Agreement which provides as follows: "The owner agrees to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the said Land together with the existing structures to the Developer on or before January, 31, 2005" and clause

M/S JALAN CEMENT WORKS LTD,KOLKATA vs. C.I.T KOLKATA - I, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2008-09 M/S. Jalan Cement Works V/S. Cit, Kolkata-1 Ltd 2Nd Floor, Room No Aayakar Bhawan, 202, 81, Netji Subhas Road, P-7, Chowringhee Kolkata-700 001 Square, Kolkata- [Pan No.: Aaacj6788R] 700 069 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 43B of the Act by Finance Act, 2003 is curative in nature and would therefore apply retrospectively w.e.f. 01.04.1988.” In the instant case, the principal business of the assessee is trading in shares as held that there was loss of Rs. 1.80 crores from the trading of the shares and M/s. Jalan Cement Works Ltd Page 13 income from

SHRI KARTICK CHANDRA MONDAL ,HOOGHLY vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 8, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

capital gains in the long term specified asset…….” We note that the term “Month” has not been defined in section 54EC of the Act. However, we note that Hon`ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Munnalal Shrikishan Mainpuri (167

SATISH KUMAR LAKHMANI,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

Capital gain. 5.8 As discussed above, the claim of receipt of sale proceeds of the scrip of M/s Unno Industries Ltd.ofRs.53,63,5181-was found to be an accommodation entry of LTCG earned by the assessee, being the beneficiary. It is clear that the unaccounted money of the assessee was brought back in the books through bogus LTCG

M/S. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

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

167). The relevant extracts of the judgment is as follows: 12. We have considered the rival submissions of the counsel on the other side and have gone through the records. The first issue that arises for our consideration is about the exercise of power by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Income-tax Act. As noted

M/S BIHARI LAL MALPANI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 43(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey & Shri M. Balaganeshi.T.A. No.527/Kol/2017 (Assessment Year 2013-14) M/S Bihari Lal Malpani Ito, Ward-43(1), Kolkata. -Vs- [Pan :Adupm 6438 R]

section 68 of the Act by observing that the assessee had not reflected the exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act in the return of income and no revised return of income was filed by the assessee and the nature of transactions of aforesaid capital gain are bogus. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. We have heard

PRADEEP KUMAR SONTHALIA,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CC-1(4), KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 53A of the T.P. Act the date of possession is the date when the assessee is to be treated as “deemed owner” and accordingly it should be treated as “date of purchase.” The Ld. A/R has accordingly argued that since Long Term Capital Gain arose within one year before the date of possession, hence the appellant is entitled

ACIT, CIR. 43, KOLKATA vs. M/S K.B.DEVELOPERS, KOLKATA

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal as well as Cross Objection by the assessee both are dismissed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri A.T. Varkey

section 45(4) of the Act. The Assessing Officer brought it to tax as business income under the head “income from business” and charged income tax at the normal rates. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal. The first appellate authority allowed the business loss claimed by the assessee of Rs.9,92,00,000/- and also allowed

ANIL KUMAR PAIK,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 468/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Anil Kumar Paik Acit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Vs 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor Suite No. 203 Off Hare Street Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aflpp6567R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/09/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 15/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

167 (Cal.) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 312 ITR 254 (SC). Accordingly, Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 9. Ground No. 2 challenges the addition of Rs.1,71,18,489/- made by the Assessing Officer invoking Section 43CA