SUVODEEP PYNE,GARIA vs. ITO, WARD 63(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2251&2252/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Suvodeep Pyne…………………..…..……….………….……….……….……Appellant Castle Apt 3B, 129, Garia Main Road, Kamdahari, Garia S.O, W.B-700084.. [Pan: Bbypp8655C] Vs. Ito, Ward-63(1), Kolkata……………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Pratim Dutta, Adv. & Sanjana Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S B Chakraborthy, Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2020-21 Against Separate Orders Both Dated 09.08.2025 Of The Addl/Jcit(A) Kochi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 – Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In This 2. Case, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Fy-2017-18, Relevant To The A.Y- 2018-19 On 29.08.2018 By Disclosing Gross Total Income Of Rs. 68,85,998/- & Claimed Deduction A Sum Of Ra.7,455/-. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Disclosed Income From Salary Of

gain u/s 111A sum of Rs.37,29,653/- and attracted tax @15% a sum of Rs.5,59,448/-and long term capital a sum of Rs. 5,71,972/-and attracted tax @ 20% a sum of Rs. 1,14,395/-u/s 112. The assessee claimed the entire salary Income was exempted as per as per DTAA and claimed relief

HIND CERAMICS PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), KOLKATQ

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Circle 10(1) Hind Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, P-7, 147, Nilganj Road, Belghoria, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Kolkata-700056, West Bengal Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach7998D Assessee By : S/Shri Soumitra Choudhury & P. Sarkar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Madhumita Das, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

gain of the assessee is not substantiated. The assessing officer noted from the Deed that Forum Riviera Constructions Pvt Ltd was actually entitled to undertake development of the housing project and in the last also when the actual sale of the flat materialised, Forum Riviera Constructions Pvt Ltd received the consideration from the payment of the purchaser in the Deed

ACIT, CIR.-29,, KOLKATA vs. M/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA EMPLOYEES CO-OP. CR. SOCIETY LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma] I.T.A. No. 268/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Acit, Circle-29, Kolkata Vs. M/S. Steel Authority Of India Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Limited Pan: Aadas 9699 B Appellant Respondent Date Of Hearing 15.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.08.2023 For The Assessee Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Mrs. Puja Somani, Ca For The Revenue Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Dr Order Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 20.12.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

capital gain from investments for AY 2011-12 which was reversed by the Ld. CIT(A) and held it as business income which action of the Ld. CIT(A) has not been challenged by the AO, so the finding of Ld CIT(A) that assessee is a trader of of shares and mutual funds crystallises. Therefore, applying the principle

BIDYUT PRAKAS BHATTACHARYA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 52(1), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

capital gains earned outside India and set off of brought forward losses for A.Y. 2016-17. It was submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate this issue in the appeal. The Ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 6. We have gone through the submissions made and also considered the facts of the case

VIVEK TIWARI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3, SURI, SURI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

capital gains earned outside I.T.A. No.: 163/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Vivek Tiwari. India and set off of brought forward losses for A.Y. 2016-17. It was submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate this issue in the appeal. The Ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 6. We have gone through the submissions

SWAPAN BHTTACHARYA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 61,, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

capital gains earned outside India and set off of brought forward losses for A.Y. 2016-17. It was submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate this issue in the appeal. The Ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). I.T.A. No.: 242/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Swapan Bhttacharya. 6. We have gone through the submissions

SREELEATHERS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(2),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain and not all overhead\nexpenses/common expenses are allowable in the said head. He\nfurther pleaded that income from investment (even debt mutual\nfund) is exempt in nature and where there is no exempt income\nearned, there cannot be any disallowance under section 14A. The\nld. Counsel heavily relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Calcutta\nHigh Court

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-40, KOLKATA vs. M/S SUKHDHAM INFRASTRUCTURES LLP, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

193/- being interest on TDS, income tax and service tax. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, adduce or amend any ground on or at the time of hearing of the appeal. 3 I.T.A. No. 2611/Kol/2019 I.T.A No. 148/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sukhdham Infrastructures LLP 3. Issue raised in ground no. 1 is a legal issue challenging

SUKHDHAM INFRASTRUCTURES LLP,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-40(2), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

193/- being interest on TDS, income tax and service tax. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, adduce or amend any ground on or at the time of hearing of the appeal. 3 I.T.A. No. 2611/Kol/2019 I.T.A No. 148/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sukhdham Infrastructures LLP 3. Issue raised in ground no. 1 is a legal issue challenging

THE INSTITUTE OF INDIAN FOUNDRYMEN,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

193 ITR 321 SC) wherein it was held that: “…. (ii) That, in the absence of any material change justifying the Department to take a different view from that taken in earlier proceedings, the question of the exemption of the assessee appellant should not have been reopened. Strictly speaking, res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings. Though, each assessment

THE INSTITUTE OF INDIAN FOUNDRYMEN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 1(3), EXEMPTION , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

193 ITR 321 SC) wherein it was held that: “…. (ii) That, in the absence of any material change justifying the Department to take a different view from that taken in earlier proceedings, the question of the exemption of the assessee appellant should not have been reopened. Strictly speaking, res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings. Though, each assessment

THE INSTITUTE OF INDIAN FOUNDRYMEN. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), EXEMPT, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

193 ITR 321 SC) wherein it was held that: “…. (ii) That, in the absence of any material change justifying the Department to take a different view from that taken in earlier proceedings, the question of the exemption of the assessee appellant should not have been reopened. Strictly speaking, res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings. Though, each assessment

THE INSTITUTE OF INDIAN FOUNDRYMEN ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD- 1(3), EXEMPT, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

193 ITR 321 SC) wherein it was held that: “…. (ii) That, in the absence of any material change justifying the Department to take a different view from that taken in earlier proceedings, the question of the exemption of the assessee appellant should not have been reopened. Strictly speaking, res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings. Though, each assessment

THE INSTITUTE OF INDIA FOUNDRYMEN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(3),EXEMPT, KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

193 ITR 321 SC) wherein it was held that: “…. (ii) That, in the absence of any material change justifying the Department to take a different view from that taken in earlier proceedings, the question of the exemption of the assessee appellant should not have been reopened. Strictly speaking, res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings. Though, each assessment

THE INSTITUTE OF INDIAN FOUNDRYMEN,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-1(3), EXEMPT, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

193 ITR 321 SC) wherein it was held that: “…. (ii) That, in the absence of any material change justifying the Department to take a different view from that taken in earlier proceedings, the question of the exemption of the assessee appellant should not have been reopened. Strictly speaking, res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings. Though, each assessment

INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-1(1), (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpalyadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

193 ITR 321 SC) wherein it was held that: “…. (ii) That, in the absence of any material change justifying the Department to take a different view from that taken in earlier proceedings, the question of the exemption of the assessee appellant should not have been reopened. Strictly speaking, res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings. Though, each assessment

INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-1(1), (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpalyadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

193 ITR 321 SC) wherein it was held that: “…. (ii) That, in the absence of any material change justifying the Department to take a different view from that taken in earlier proceedings, the question of the exemption of the assessee appellant should not have been reopened. Strictly speaking, res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings. Though, each assessment

GULMOHAR DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-9(2), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2009-10

gain time then the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning delay the Could should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a looser and he too would have incurred quiet a large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay