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]

168/- • M/s. Gupta & Syal Limited sold the said property on 14.03.2011 to Ms. Savitri Devi Singh for a consideration of Rs. 120 crs. and computed long term capital gain of Rs. 107,98,39,652/-. However, post amalgamation with the appellant company the entire gain on sale of above land was set off against the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation

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]

168/- • M/s. Gupta & Syal Limited sold the said property on 14.03.2011 to Ms. Savitri Devi Singh for a consideration of Rs. 120 crs. and computed long term capital gain of Rs. 107,98,39,652/-. However, post amalgamation with the appellant company the entire gain on sale of above land was set off against the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation

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

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

capital gain cannot be computed. While taking this view, he derive support from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.C.Srinivasa Setty 128 ITR 294 relied upon by the him. The ITAT Hyderabad Bench in the case of Coromandel Fertilisers Ltd. 90 ITD 439 (Hyd) (supra) held that it is not possible to determine the cost

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

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

capital gain cannot be computed. While taking this view, he derive support from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.C.Srinivasa Setty 128 ITR 294 relied upon by the him. The ITAT Hyderabad Bench in the case of Coromandel Fertilisers Ltd. 90 ITD 439 (Hyd) (supra) held that it is not possible to determine the cost

ICI INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

capital gain cannot be computed. While taking this view, he derive support from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.C.Srinivasa Setty 128 ITR 294 relied upon by the him. The ITAT Hyderabad Bench in the case of Coromandel Fertilisers Ltd. 90 ITD 439 (Hyd) (supra) held that it is not possible to determine the cost

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

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

168/- in the nature of revenue though the said new assets provide enduring benefit to the assessee. 2(a) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case for the assessment year 2003-04 under consideration, Ld.CIT(A) has erred in accepting the compensation received amounting to Rs.7,10,35,264/- on relinquishment of all rights of operation

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

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

168/- in the nature of revenue though the said new assets provide enduring benefit to the assessee. 2(a) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case for the assessment year 2003-04 under consideration, Ld.CIT(A) has erred in accepting the compensation received amounting to Rs.7,10,35,264/- on relinquishment of all rights of operation

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

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

168/- in the nature of revenue though the said new assets provide enduring benefit to the assessee. 2(a) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case for the assessment year 2003-04 under consideration, Ld.CIT(A) has erred in accepting the compensation received amounting to Rs.7,10,35,264/- on relinquishment of all rights of operation

SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD GOEL,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 43, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] I.T.A No. 2121/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Jagdish Prasad Goel -Vs- Dcit, Circle-43, Kolkata [Pan: Affpg 1693 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2(1A) of the Act and therefore not chargeable to Central income-tax.” Applying the proposition of law I hold that the profit on sale of agricultural land cannot be treated as income and brought to tax under the Income Tax Act. 9. Even if the assessee has filed a return disclosing the profit as short term capital gain

D.C.I.T. CIR-12, KOLKATA,KOLKATA vs. USHA MARTIN TELEMATICS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee on this ground is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, J.M. &Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

capital receipt and accordingly not liable to tax. Both the above grounds are independent and without prejudice to each other. The appellant craves leave to add to alter, to ament or to delete any or all of the above grounds of appeal,at or prior to hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the honourable Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

MR. ASHWIN KR. TULSIDAS & JAYANT KR. TULSIDAS,KOLKATA vs. THE ITO, WARD-43(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Mr. Ashwin Kr. Tulsidas & Jayant Kr. Tulsidas……............…………………………………….…..Appellant Executor To The Estate Of Latetulsidas Khatau C/O Jethabhai Khatau & Co. 176, Jamnalal Bajaj Street Kolkata – 700 007 [Pan : Aaaba 0406 G] Income Tax Officer, Ward-43(1), Kolkata………………….............................…………………..Respondent Appearances By: Shri P.J. Bhide, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. Cit D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 8Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 20Th , 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

gain. Consistent with view taken by the ‘SMC’ Bench of the ITAT Mumbai in the case of another co-owner of the property [Estate of Krishnakumar J Khatau vs. ITO (supra)] we direct the Assessing Officer to give the benefit to the assessee by adopting the fair market value at Rs.110/- per sq. mtr. Accordingly, this ground of the assessee

BINOD KUMAR MAHATO ,BURDWAN vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - BURDWAN , BURDWAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gains. Therefore, we find that the allegation of Ld. CIT that AO has not conducted sufficient enquiry in relation to sale of immovable property is not true. not conducted sufficient enquiry in relation to sale of immovable property is not true. not conducted sufficient enquiry in relation to sale of immovable property is not true. 5.1 In view

RADIX TIE-UP PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-11(2), KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Sri S. S. Godara] आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.2404/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Radix Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward-11(2), Kolkata 184/A, Regent Colony, Tollygunge, Kolkata – 700001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecr1237M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/01/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - 4, Kolkata’S Order Dated 10.05.2019 Passed In Case No.791/Cit(A)-4/16-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. For The Reasons Stated In Assessee’S Condonation Petition Dated 27.01.20 Explaining Five Days’ Delay To Be Attributable To Various Procedural Aspects & Compilation Of Necessary Records & On Account Of No Objection From The Revenue Side, I Condone The Impugned Delay Of Five Days In Filing Of The Instant Appeal & Proceed To Adjudicate The Same On Merits.

capital gain in view of the Karnataka High Court's decision referred to above. What income is said to have been escaped does not find mention therein. Even assuming for the sake of argument, the income was liable to be taxed as short term gain unless there is any material before the authority concerned that it exceeds the limit

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

168-171 of Paper Book-paragraphs 25 at 29- 30). The Department had preferred appeal against the said order dated August 25, 2017 passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 before the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court under section 260A of the Act being ITA No. 125/2019, GA No. 3548/2018 (Page

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

168-171 of Paper Book-paragraphs 25 at 29- 30). The Department had preferred appeal against the said order dated August 25, 2017 passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 before the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court under section 260A of the Act being ITA No. 125/2019, GA No. 3548/2018 (Page

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

168-171 of Paper Book-paragraphs 25 at 29- 30). The Department had preferred appeal against the said order dated August 25, 2017 passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 before the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court under section 260A of the Act being ITA No. 125/2019, GA No. 3548/2018 (Page

BIRLA CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

168-171 of Paper Book-paragraphs 25 at 29- 30). The Department had preferred appeal against the said order dated August 25, 2017 passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 before the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court under section 260A of the Act being ITA No. 125/2019, GA No. 3548/2018 (Page

M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTING LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

capital gains. Thus, the AO erred in considering investments in Lanco while applying Rule 8D. 2.5.2 The aforesaid claim finds strength from the following:  Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Holcim India (P) Ltd.  The ITAT (Chandigarh) in case of ACIT Vs. Spray Engineering Devices Ltd. [53 SOT 70]  ITAT(Chennai) in case if EIH Associated Hotels