PURUSHOTTAM DAS AGARWAL ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 35(1) , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Years :2012-13 Soumitra Choudhury V/S. Acit, Circle-12 28C, Satish Mukherjee 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Road, Kolkata-700026 Kidwai Road, [Pan No.Acnpc 4627 Q] Kolkarta-16 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Miraj D Shah, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sankar Halder, Jcit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 13-03-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing Assessment Year :2015-16 Purushottam Das Agarwal V/S. Income Tax Officer, C/O Balaji Enterprises, Ward-35(1), Aayakar 83/85 N.S. Road, Ground Bhawan Porva, 110, Floor, Kolkata Shantipally, Kokata- [Pan No.Actpa 9138 Q] 107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Subash Agarwal Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sankar Halder, Jcit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 14-03-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 15-03-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- These Two Assessees Have Filed Their Instant Appeal(S) For Assessment Year(S) 2012-13 & 2015-16 Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax

section 68 is called for. Since the assessee has placed the contract note, payment through cheques identifying the company whose shares were transacted, the genuineness of claim of long term capital gain should not have been doubted. We do not find merit in these contentions of the assessee in the light of the facts that there is prevalent practice

SOUMITRA CHOUDHURY ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 22 , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Years :2012-13 Soumitra Choudhury V/S. Acit, Circle-12 28C, Satish Mukherjee 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Road, Kolkata-700026 Kidwai Road, [Pan No.Acnpc 4627 Q] Kolkarta-16 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Miraj D Shah, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sankar Halder, Jcit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 13-03-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing Assessment Year :2015-16 Purushottam Das Agarwal V/S. Income Tax Officer, C/O Balaji Enterprises, Ward-35(1), Aayakar 83/85 N.S. Road, Ground Bhawan Porva, 110, Floor, Kolkata Shantipally, Kokata- [Pan No.Actpa 9138 Q] 107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Subash Agarwal Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sankar Halder, Jcit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 14-03-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 15-03-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- These Two Assessees Have Filed Their Instant Appeal(S) For Assessment Year(S) 2012-13 & 2015-16 Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax

section 68 is called for. Since the assessee has placed the contract note, payment through cheques identifying the company whose shares were transacted, the genuineness of claim of long term capital gain should not have been doubted. We do not find merit in these contentions of the assessee in the light of the facts that there is prevalent practice

SRI SURYA PRAKASH BAGLA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR-VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 398/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Surya Prakash Bagla -Vs- Dcit, Central Circle-Vii, Kolkata [Pan: Aebpb 4558 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2(42A) of the Act, the Board, in case of transactions take place directly between the parties and not through stock exchanges, the date of contract for sale as declared by the parties shall be treated as the date of transfer, provided it is followed up by actual delivery of shares and the transfer deeds. In view of this

WHITEPIN TIE-UP LTD.,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WD-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2011-12

Capital Gain of Rs.4,51,20,300.00 which was claimed as exempted income u/s. 10(34) & 10(38) of the Act respectively. The assessee made the disallowance of the expenses incurred in relation to such exempted income under section 14A of the Act for Rs.66,99,516.00 only. However the AO was not satisfied with the disallowance made

M/S TITAGARH INDUSTRIES LTD. (FORMERLY M/S BHATPARA PAPERS LTD.),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

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

172 27,46,00,827 (apportioned) Less : WDV/Original 5,38,761 37,06,27,534 Cost Short Term Capital Loss 1,39,588 9,60,26,527 9,61,66,115 Less: Net Selling 3,45,660 Expenses Aggregate Capital Loss 9,65,11,775 12. In view of the above, the Ld. AR submitted that seen from any angle

SMT. SUSHILA DEVI KAJARIA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 36, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

Capital Gains. In my considered view the banking documents are mere self serving recitals. The law in the matter of self-serving recitals has been long established by the Hon'ble apex Court. In the case of CIT vs P.Mohankala 291 ITR 278, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "the money came by way of bank cheque

NAVIN KUMAR KAJARIA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 35, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

Capital Gains. In my considered view the banking documents are mere self serving recitals. The law in the matter of self-serving recitals has been long established by the Hon'ble apex Court. In the case of CIT vs P.Mohankala 291 ITR 278, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "the money came by way of bank cheque

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6,, KOLKATA vs. LOKNATH SARAF SECURITIES LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up ITA No

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

gains of business or profession' in the context of computing the gross total income of assessee company. If any specific item is to be considered differently, the same would have been specifically stated in Explanation to Section 73 as in the case of section 32A(3), 32AB(3) etc. In Explanation to section 32A(3) it has specifically mentioned

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. Dcit, Circle-10, Kolkata M/S Stp Limited C/O. G.P. Agarwal & Associates, 7A, Kiran Shankar Ray Road, 2Nd Floor, Kol-1. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs6339M .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

4 M/s STP Limited b) Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd. 213 ITR 523/80 Taxman 61 (Guj] c) Addl. Comm -vs- farasol Ltd. 19871 163 ITR 364 [1985] 22 Taxman 418 [Raj] d) Exxon Mobil Lubricants (P) Ltd. [Delhi [2010] 328 ITR 17. Hon’ble High Court was of the view that liability of the assessee under the agreement had arisen

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

4 are dismissed. 14. As regards Ground no. 3 the provisions of sub-section (15) of section 155 of the Act are as under: “Other amendments. 155. (15) Where in the assessment for any year, a capital gain arising from the transfer of a capital asset, being land or building or both, is computed I.T.A. No.: 1690/KOL/2024 Assessment Year

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]

4 section 14A of the Act were not fully and properly applied by the AO while concluding the assessment. 8. The ld. Counsel for the assessee firstly pointed out that in the show cause notice u/.s 263 of the Act dated 20.09.2016 the CIT had not raised the issue of lack of enquiry on the part of the AO before

SHRI UDIT AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. DCIT(IT)-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed accordingly

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2014-15 Shri Udit Agarwal V/S. Dcit (It)-2(1), 110, 3, Madan Mohan Burman Shanti Pally, Kolkata- Street, Kolkataa-007 107 [Pan No.Ahupa 0424 B] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 03-12-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 26-12-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22,Kolkata’S Order Dated 10.05.2017 Passed In Case No.71/Cit(A)/22/Kol/14-15/16-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Learned Representatives. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Ground Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Treating Its Long Term Capital Gains (Ltcg) Of ₹64,99,391/- To Be Unexplained Cash Credits U/S 68 Of The Act. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reads As Under:- ”06. Decision: 1. I Have Carefully Considered The Action Of The Ld. Ao In Treating The Amount Of Rs.67,24,391/- Being Claimed By The Appellant To Be Proceeds Of Shares Sold To Be Ltcg & Claimed As Exempt. The Findings Of The Ld. Ao Are Based On The Information Being Supplied By The Investigation Wing Of The Department At Kolkata. I Have Also Carefully Examined The Submissions Of The Appellant, Wherein

Capital Gain made by the assessee during the previous year. It is apparent that, in the grab of alleged LTCG, the assessee earned exempt income of Rs.67,24,391/- and huge amounts were brought into the books without payment of any taxes. I find it pertinent to mention here that In CIT Vs NR Portfolio Pvt Ltd on 22 November

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 (without STT). This situation is there in the impugned assessment order also. This explanation was accepted by the ITA No.847/Kol/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 Usha Martin Ventures Ltd. v. DCIT Cir-6 Kol. Page 11 Assessing Officer in our case only in the Assessment year 2007-08. The copy of the Assessment Order is enclosed at pages

JAMSHED ALI MOLLA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-30, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 2233/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Jamshed Ali Molla -Vs- Dcit, Circle-30, Kolkata [Pan: Aevpm 4145 H ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) / 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 21.07.2014 for the Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The only effective issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in confirming the disallowance of capital loss of Rs 78,60,000/- in the facts and circumstances of the case

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

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

capital asset situate in India. ** ** ** Explanation 4.- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the expression "through" shall mean and include and shall be deemed to have always meant and included ''by means of", "in consequence of" or "by reason of".' 7.1 Section 40 of the Act spells out what amounts are not deductible from the income

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

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

capital asset situate in India. ** ** ** Explanation 4.- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the expression "through" shall mean and include and shall be deemed to have always meant and included ''by means of", "in consequence of" or "by reason of".' 7.1 Section 40 of the Act spells out what amounts are not deductible from the income

M/S SMPL INFRA LTD ( EASTWHILE M/S SUBHAS PROJECTS & MARKETING LTD),KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CC - XXVIII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

gains would be available to such 4 ITA Nos.2286-2289/K/2013 & 2035-2036/K/2013 M/s. SPML Infra Ltd. transferee enterprise for the unexpired period during which the transferor enterprise would have been entitled to the deduction, if the transfer had not taken place . Explanation – For the purposes of this clause, “infrastructure facility” means – (a) a road including toll road, a bridge

I.T.O WD - 8(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SPML INFRA LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

gains would be available to such 4 ITA Nos.2286-2289/K/2013 & 2035-2036/K/2013 M/s. SPML Infra Ltd. transferee enterprise for the unexpired period during which the transferor enterprise would have been entitled to the deduction, if the transfer had not taken place . Explanation – For the purposes of this clause, “infrastructure facility” means – (a) a road including toll road, a bridge