SRI SUBRATA BANERJEE ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 51(1) , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

section 10(38) of the Act.” g) The BENCH “H”OF MUMBAIITAT in the case of ARVINDKUMAR JAINHUF[ITA No.4682/Mum/2014]order dated 18.09.2017 held as under vide Page 6 Para 8: “……We found that as far as initiation of investigation of broker is concerned, the assessee is no way concerned with the activity of the broker. Detailed finding has been

ITO, WARD - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TRIBUTE TRADING AND FINANCE LTD.,, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

section 10(38) of the Act.” g) The BENCH “H”OF MUMBAIITAT in the case of ARVINDKUMAR JAINHUF[ITA No.4682/Mum/2014]order dated 18.09.2017 held as under vide Page 6 Para 8: “……We found that as far as initiation of investigation of broker is concerned, the assessee is no way concerned with the activity of the broker. Detailed finding has been

ACHHELAL YADAV,DANKUNI vs. ITO, WARD-23(1),HOOGHLY. , HOOGHLY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 844/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Achhelal Yadav Income Tax Officer, Ward- 23(1), G/4/3, Phase-Ii, Dankuni Housing Vs Hooghly Complex P.O. Dankuni West Bengal - 712331 [Pan: Aakpy3403B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/10/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned 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. 17/07/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Ao Passed U/S 154 When In Fact The Entire Sold Lands Were Rural Agriculture Lands & Thus The Said Lands Do Not Come Under The Purview Of The Definition Of Capital Asset As Provided Under Section 2(14)(Iii) & Thus The Entire Calculation Of Capital Gain On Sale Of Rural Agriculture Land Was Illegal, Wrong & Without Any Sanction Of Law. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ao By Invoking The Provision Of Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act Since The Mistake, Which Was Sought To Be Rectified By The Ao, Was Not A Mistake Apparent From The Record As Prescribed Under Section 154. 2

section 54 of the Act at Rs.69,80,000/-on account of purchase of agricultural land. However, the ld. Assessing Officer completed the assessment recalculating the long- term capital gain at Rs.42,48,171

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]

gains/ losses arising from such transfer in accordance with Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act. And the income arising from other sources during the assessment year 2016-2017 was also duly calculated by the assessee in accordance 4 I.T.A. No. 1945/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ritz Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. with

SUVAPRASANNA BHATTACHARYA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 55, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07 Suvaprasanna Bhatacharya V/S. Acit, Circle-55, Bh-167, Salt Lake, Sector- 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Ii, Kolkata-700 016 Kidwai Road, [Pan No.Aedpb 2611 R] Kolkata – 700 016 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

gain will not be liable to tax. Consequential amendment has also been made in s. 45 of the Act. The above amendment took effect from 1st April, 1973 and applied in relation to asst. yrs. 1973-74 and subsequent years. 5.2 By the Finance Act, 2007, in cl. (14), for sub-cl. (ii), the following was substituted w.e.f

CAROLINA FOOD AND INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1) , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

gain arising from transfer of shares. Thereafter the ld. CIT(Appeals)relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of McDowell and Company Limited –vs.- Commercial Tax Officer reported in 1985 STC Vo;. 59 277 and also the decision of Vodafone International Holding B.V. –vs.- Union of India and Another (2012) 341 page

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

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

171,66,35,574/- was also imposed u/s 270A of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by dismissing the ground of disallowance of expenses exceeding the prescribed limit of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI/IRDA) amounting

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

171,66,35,574/- was also imposed u/s 270A of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by dismissing the ground of disallowance of expenses exceeding the prescribed limit of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI/IRDA) amounting

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

171,66,35,574/- was also imposed u/s 270A of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by dismissing the ground of disallowance of expenses exceeding the prescribed limit of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI/IRDA) amounting

SMT. INDU MAHESH SHAH,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-35(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is raised in Grounds No. 1 & 2. The relevant facts of the case apropos this issue are that the assessee is an individual, who is engaged in the business of trading in the name and style of her proprietary concern M/s. Arizona Company. The return of income for the year under consideration

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

171 -176 of Judicial PB]. 9. Ld. A.R. also referred to the reconciliation of the details of reversals during the year vis-a-vis the provisions made in earlier years alongwith details of disallowances made under section 43B of the Act in those respective years, filed before the ld. PCIT. The ld. A.R. also referred to the relevant extracts

REENA MITRA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 29(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07

capital gain (STCG) and other sources”. During the year under consideration, assessee failed to disclose certain income in her return of income and for the same the AO has made the addition in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act. The detail of such income is as under :- 1) Bank interest Income

SHRI SANTANU SANYAL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Pradip Kumar Choubey

capital gains of Rs. 2,30,238/- from of sale of equity share and equity-oriented fund, while giving effect to the Impugned Order. Page 3 of 12 I.T.A. No.: 41/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Santanu Sanyal. 9. That the Ld. AO erred on facts and in law in not granting exemption under Section 10(34) on dividend income

ACIT, CIR-27, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI BIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

gains for purchase of an under construction flat under the said section. I therefore find that the assessee sold the Oat in Assessment Year 2012-2013 and paid taxes on the said income also. Thus, the purchase and sale of the fiat cannot be disputed for some minor differences in the Boucher as mentioned by the Assessing Officer

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA,KOLKATA vs. M/S PRB SECURITIES PVT.LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 211/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Prb Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcp 5425 G ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 22.03.2016 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The first issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in disallowing the business loss treating the same as bogus loss in the sums

DCIT,CIRCLE-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. WEST BENGAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals being ITA Nos

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section 28/29 of the Act. 5. The main object for which the appellant company was established is to secure and assist in the expeditious and orderly establishment, growth and development of industries in the State of West Bengal. Among its ancillary objects it had the following objectives. "4. To advance loans and participate in the share capital of companies, firms

ITO, WD-36(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI RAJESH AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 10/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Ito, Ward-36(1), Kolkata -Vs- Shri Rajesh Agarwal [Pan: Adhpa 3042 O] (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gains of Rs 62,84,925/- taking the cost of acquisition at Rs Nil and by invoking section 50C of the Act. 4.8. Addition on account of sub-letting rental income – Rs 8,19,808/- Disallowance of rent paid – Rs 7,20,000/- The ld AO observed from Form 26AS that the assessee had received the total rental income